If you want to check someone’s sense of ethics (including your own), you can start by asking one simple question: What would you do if you thought no one was watching you?

It’s a quandary that goes back to the writings of Plato and the famous Ring of Gyges — an enchanted ring that, the great philosopher supposed, would turn the wearer invisible and allow him to get away with anything he wanted, completely unobserved.

If you were unknown and unseen, would it change who you are and what you’re willing to do? Is your sense of honor, decency, or chivalry predicated on the fact that someone you respect might be watching you?

A recent incident involving a bag of cash scattered on a busy highway brought those questions into very non-hypothetical focus. The AP did a very informal “what would you do?” survey, and the results were surprising – and more than a little startling. Many respondents said they would have taken the opportunity to pocket a few bills themselves … but only if their children were not there to see them do it. (As if the kids wouldn’t already be aware that their parents had a pretty shaky sense of honesty, just because they hadn’t seen it in action.)

You can’t put the brakes on chivalry, decency, and integrity just because you think no one’s watching when you’ve got a chance to snatch up a quick, unearned buck. Abandoning your own sense of honor just isn’t worth the price.

You’re cruising along the highway when you see a bunch of green bills fluttering around like flakes in a snow globe. You get closer and you realize it’s cash. Other drivers are pulling over to snatch what they can. What do you do?

Some drivers in Maryland faced that choice (in March 2012) when two plastic bags containing about $5,700 in bills and coins fell from an unlatched door on an armored truck and spilled onto Interstate 270 about 35 miles northwest of Washington.

One witness said she saw about 30 cars pulled over on the shoulders and people frantically collecting fistfuls of cash. Police say the motorists grabbed almost all of it. Others kept driving.

Imagine having your commute turn into a morality play. What’s your first reaction? Do you slam on the brakes, jump onto a busy highway and start scrambling? Do you slow down to get a closer look? Or do you keep driving, guilt-free but without a surprise payday? OK, now what if your kids were in the car?

The answers from several people who spoke to The Associated Press on Friday offer a glimpse into the minds of Americans trying to juggle doing the right thing and getting by in a tough economy where even a few unexpected dollars can be a blessing.

It wasn’t hypothetical for attorney Heather Kelly, who was driving to her office in Frederick when she passed through the surreal scene. She didn’t see the armored truck but noticed the two clear plastic bags of currency along the road and people snatching the $1 to $50 bills wafting through the air and skittering along the highway.

“It was in the traffic lanes and on the shoulders and just generally kind of like a snow globe of cash,” she said. “Some people had fists full of money, fists full of dollars, and other people were just still trying to collect.”

Kelly decided it was too risky to stop, though no one was injured. She said she wouldn’t have stopped even if it was a two-lane road with no other traffic.

“It was really unclear what was going on and I like to stay away from that type of thing,” she said.

The truck belonged to Garda World Security Services Corp., a Montreal-based security and cash logistics company, spokesman Joe Gavaghan said. He said they’re cooperating with state police investigators to find out what happened.

Maryland State Police urged people to return the money to the agency’s barracks in Rockville, with no questions asked and no charges filed. As of Friday afternoon, no one had.

So what would you do?

Chicago billing clerk Stephany Harris, 53, didn’t miss a beat.

“Of course I would,” she said. “If the armored car had been in an accident of something, I’d make sure the drivers were OK and I’d call 911. But I’d put as much money in my pockets (as I could) and run.”

But what if her kids were there? “I absolutely would not take any money,” she answered again without hesitation. “I wouldn’t want them to get the message that grabbing money that is not yours is the right thing to do.”

Jeff Bora, 30, of Chicago said he would stop to make sure none of the money was stolen.

“I’d start picking it up and I’d call police right away,” he said.

As a former lawyer and prosecutor, he knows that it’s stealing and he could land in serious trouble. Even if he was alone and could get away undetected, he said he still wouldn’t do it: “It would be about how I would feel about myself later. Bad karma would get me in the end.”

Another kind of karma occurred to Dennis Lowe, 30, of Providence, R.I. He said it’s simple human nature, especially if the money is from an armored truck. He said plenty of Americans are fed up with banks, insurance companies and other corporations that move cash in armored trucks.

“The money is insured,” he said while waiting downtown for a bus. “They’ve been taking money from me, so it’s just karma.”

He said he likely would have stopped to grab a few bills, but it might depend on where he was going. He planned to watch his alma mater, Xavier University, on TV in the NCAA basketball tournament on Friday night.

What if he spotted the cash on his way to catch the game? Watch his team or grab the greenbacks?

“Watch Xavier,” he said. “No question.”

In Southern California, where mammoth freeways and gridlock are a way of life, 19-year-old Stephen Schreiber worried about causing traffic.

“I don’t want to get hit by some cars and I don’t want to cause traffic,” he said while working at a coffee shop in Tustin.

He did see one possibility: “What kind of car are we driving? A convertible? Because then maybe my hand or my butterfly net would just stick up and grab some as I drive on by, but otherwise I probably wouldn’t stop,” he said.

Anthony Janni, 36, a bartender in Hagerstown, said he understands why people would stop for “money that seems to just fall into their hands,” but he probably wouldn’t have done so.

“The highway’s not necessarily the place to do something like that,” Janni said. “It’s not something worth causing an accident over.”

Brian Gates, 32, of Cincinnati said he would get out to pick up the cash, with a few conditions. If he had kids and they were in the car, he wouldn’t do it. He also wouldn’t risk his safety.

“I’m not going to take a chance of endangering my life or others for money,” he said.

If he was alone? “Oh yeah! If there is money out there. We can all use money.”

The economy lurked in the decision-making for Gates and others.

Gates believes it’s much harder economically now for the middle class than in his parents’ day because “everything costs more.”

“I bought a little economy car to help with gas, when gas was two dollars, and now it’s doubled. I never thought I would have to pay four dollars for gas.”

Jeanetta Campbell, 40, is a part-time mail clerk for the U.S. Postal Service in Cincinnati. She said she certainly wouldn’t leave her kids in a car to chase money and she probably wouldn’t do it if she was alone.

The denomination of the bills might make a difference.

“If it was hundred-dollar bills, it would be worth it,” she said, laughing. “But if was just (single) dollars, no.”

She’s a single mother with three sons and a grandson. Her youngest son, 17, is still at home. She finds it “harder all the time to make ends meet.”

Maybe the economy makes people more likely to go chase cash on a highway, she speculated, recalling her own single mother: “My mother still had to struggle, but I think the economy was better when we were growing up than it is now.”

Related posts:

1. The Medicine of Chivalry
2. A Knightly Christmas Gift
3. Faith, Money and Chivalry

The concept of chivalry as a military code of ethics is sometimes dismissed as simply an excuse for causing harm and doing violence under the guise of righteousness. In fact, in many of Chivalry Today’s presentations, audience members (of all ages) openly scoff at the notion of a medieval knight as an “ethical soldier” who has respect for “rules of engagement.” Sadly, many people have come to believe that a soldier’s code of conduct is merely a pretty mask put over an ugly truth: That warriors in the Middle Ages took pride and pleasure in harming other people, and embraced any excuse to do so.

But new research from the University of Copenhagen indicates something very different: That chivalry may, in fact, have reflected knights’ desire to refrain from killing and hurting other people needlessly. In fact, this study of authentic medieval accounts and chronicles reveals that knights and soldiers of the Middle Ages may have been acutely aware of the causes and symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and looked (in part) to the principles of the code of chivalry as a means of protecting themselves from the psychological aftermath of battle.

Of course, there were no combat psychologists following knights on the Crusades or in the Hundred Years War – but as this article by Kristian Sjøgren, originally published in the Danish science journal Science Nordic shows, medieval soldiers may have been more aware of the mental risks of combat and warfare than was previously believed – and chivalry might have been their armor against PTSD.

Medieval warriors were in grave danger of developing post-traumatic stress disorder following their acts of war. The knights could counteract the severe mental suffering by ensuring they always fought for a noble cause when cutting their enemies to shreds. (Photo: Saffron Blaze)

Medieval knights are often depicted as bloodthirsty men who enjoyed killing. But that is a completely wrong picture, new research shows.

The knights did not kill just because they wanted to, but because it was their job – precisely like soldiers today. Nor were the Middle Ages as violent as we think, despite their different perception of violence compared to ours.

“Modern military psychology enables us to read medieval texts in a new way – giving us insight into the perception of violence in the Middle Ages in the general population and the use of lethal violence by knights,” says Thomas Heebøll-Holm of the SAXO Institute at the University of Copenhagen, who researches the perception of violence in the late Middle Ages.

“Previously, medieval texts were read as worshipping heroes and glorifying violence. But in the light of modern military psychology we can see the mental cost to the knights of their participation in the gruesome and extremely violent wars in the Middle Ages.”

Violent by nature or culture?

Were the knights violent by nature, enjoying killing? Or was killing something they learned from living in a violent society and culture?

Some psychologists believe violence is latent in our genes, while others believe it is something we learn through training. Heebøll-Holm’s research places the medieval perception of violence somewhere between those categories.

“From crime statistics and letters of pardon, historians can see that people in the Middle Ages were no more violent than we are today,” says the researcher. “But they had a different perception of the use of violence, including lethal violence.”

Back then, people generally had the same concerns about violence as we do today – they were opposed to the use of violence, he explains. In some cultural situations they were forced to use violence, even if it involved murder – and they did so.

“If someone had acted in a way that violated the honour of one of your family members, you were expected to make him answer for his actions, and kill him if necessary.”

Kill and get a pardon

The researcher relates a story from Paris in the 14th Century. A woman was beaten to death by her husband. Her two brothers demanded that the husband pay penance for his actions, but he refused.

Although the brothers felt no pleasure from killing the husband, and even tried to avoid doing so, they felt they were forced to kill him to re-establish their honour.

But instead of punishment the brothers were pardoned, as it was well known that the husband had violated their honour by killing their sister.

“In the Middle Ages, the authorities were too weak to ensure law and order,” says Heebøll-Holm.

“To carry this to its logical conclusion, it was up to individuals to ensure that their honour was not violated or abused by others. This meant that ordinary people had to kill to show the world around them that they were willing to ensure their rights by using the most drastic means if necessary.”

Knights with PTSD

Although they exercised violence in its most extreme form, participating in wars where their comrades were cut into shreds by their enemy’s troops and where they themselves used brutal and gruesome violence against the enemy, medieval knights were not violent by nature or through culture.

But their war experiences could leave them with a very serious case of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to the researcher.

During his studies of violence in the Middle Ages he came across a book written by a knight who lived in the first half of the 14th century.

“His name was Geoffroi de Charny, and he was one of the most respected knights of his age. The book, about the life of a knight, included the psychological consequences of being a knight – and they strongly resemble the symptoms of PTSD.”

In his book, de Charny advises knights on how to relate to the fact that they must kill people when they are at war. He also mentions some of the hardships knights face: poor sleep, hunger, and a feeling that even nature is going against them.

“De Charny describes stress factors that we also see related in modern military psychology, including reports from Vietnam War veterans,” he says. “His picture of knights shows they are very remote from the violent psychopaths that we picture them as.”

Fight for a good cause

De Charny also suggested what the knights should do to resist the stress factors. He said knights should fight for a good cause to avoid succumbing to the pressures of war. A ‘good cause’ should be God’s cause – a war for a higher and just cause, to reinstate law and order – and not for personal gain.

“On the one hand we can see that de Charny was a very conscientious man – and in the Middle Ages conscience was regarded as God’s way of telling us how to relate to rights and wrongs.

“On the other hand, he was a warrior who took part in several wars over a period of 30 years, including a crusade to the city we call Ismir. War and crusades are by definition violent,” says Heebøll-Holm.

Related posts:

1. Violent Arts & Gentle Souls
2. Chivalry in Timeline – A Behind-the-Scenes Look
3. The Ring and the Knightly Virtues

Chinese war leader Sun Tzu wrote The Art Of War, which is often quoted by business leaders who place profit above principles. What would Sun Tzu have thought of the code of chivalry as a guide for business strategy?

Chivalry’s sense of honesty, ethics, and fair-play is often criticized by commentators who favor a more “cutthroat philosophy” of competition – particularly in the arenas of business and finance. Proponents of this approach often cite the writings of the famous Chinese strategist Sun Tzu to justify their position, in the belief that his timeless work The Art Of War strips away any pretense of honor or ethics in the pursuit of military victory. By adapting this strategy guide for effective, profitable business practices, any sort of hindrances of conscience or idealism would be completely stripped away, and you’d be left with nothing but the raw, ruthless drive to conquer.

But in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Like effective strategists throughout history, from Vegetius to Von Clausewitz, Sun Tzu recognized that there are factors of principles and ethics that must guide a general, an army, and a nation (and thus, a business as well) if they are to achieve any sort of lasting victory. Far from abandoning the ideals of honor and chivalry, Sun Tzu’s strategies seem to be in perfect harmony with the code of chivalry — whether the victory you are seeking is military, or commercial.

Business consultant Gary Gagliardi is author of the series of books Sun Tzu’s Art Of War Plus … and founder of the Science of Strategy Institute. In this article (excerpted from his book Sun Tzu’s Art Of War Plus The Art Of Marketing), he contradicts the notion that Sun Tzu would have allowed, or encouraged his followers to abandon their principles in pursuit of profits. Instead, as Mr. Gagliardi teaches his business clients, Sun Tzu’s approach to competition would have been one of trust, respect … and even chivalry! All of these ideals have important roles to play in the pursuit of profit and victory.

Consultant Gary Gagliardi is founder of the Science of Stragegy Institute, and the Sun Tzu’s Art Of War Plus ... book series.

Sun Tzu’s The Art of War is broadly read within the business world as a basic primer for competitive strategy, which is easily adapted to marketing. In the original Chinese, the original work is an almost mathematical analysis of how competitive systems work. Though a basic translation puts its principles in military terms, its original formulas can be directly translated line-by-line from military terminology to business marketing terms. When we do this, some fascinating ethical insights emerge.

The most common misconception among people who have not studied Sun Tzu’s work is that its basic competitive philosophy is Machiavellian, devoid of ethical considerations in advancing its principles of success in competitive arenas. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, Sun Tzu teaches that ethical behavior is the foundation for success in competition.

Sun Tzu’s ethics are pragmatic rather than idealistic. He focuses on the fact that direct conflict is inherently costly. Those who naturally react to competitive situations by wanting to engage in battles and defeat their opponents are doomed to defeat, even if they consistently win their battles. This is as true in marketing battles as it is in military ones. He advances the art of war as a strategy for replacing the artless, destructive conflicts that define most competitive battles, including those that too often take place among business competitors.

His analysis is that victorious conflict is so inherently costly that it is never worthwhile. We can win a market by spending too much money, but we cannot make a profit doing so. He says specifically:

A general that fights a hundred battles and wins a hundred battles in not a great general. The great general is one who finds a way to win without fighting a single battle.

The Art of War teaches us to stop defining successful in terms of winning conflicts or in terms of beating opponents. Sun Tzu redefines success very simply as advancing our position, improving our market share, if you will, while avoiding costly direct conflicts. By using strategy, as opposed to brute force, we can advance our position in such a way that people do not want to attack us, and ideally want to join us. In warfare and marketing, this means finding openings where we can go around the competitors rather than battling them directly.

Ethical considerations are at the foundation of his strategic principles. Of the five factors that are the basis for strategy, the first and foremost is philosophy. Sun Tzu taught that people could not be united to succeed in any endeavor unless they shared a common philosophy that gives their struggle a greater meaning. A shared philosophy unites and focuses an organization. In business, our term for his idea of philosophy is a company mission.

Every successful organization has a corporate mission that gives them a purpose greater than simply making money. All businesses are trying to improve the world in one way or another, whether they recognize it or not. Even the most basic economic activities — feeding people, clothing them, giving them shelter — are worthy and important goals, but only if you value people. Sun Tzu valued people because he saw that our every success depends upon them. In human society, we cannot be successful in a vacuum. A well-defined higher mission is the basis for any successful marketing campaign.

In Sun Tzu’s system, not only must we have worthy goals to be successful, but our methods, the last of his five factors, must be honorable as well. As a matter of fact, the only limitation he puts on methods is that they must be consistent with our philosophy. If our methods run contrary to our mission, we cannot be successful. Again, this is not an idealistic principle but a pragmatic one. From a marketing point of view, we cannot sell our higher mission if our methods are clearly inconsistent with those ideals. Do you ever get spam e-mail messages from companies offering to put a stop to spam e-mail? How successful do you think those companies are going to be?

The final and perhaps most critical of his five keys factors with an ethical dimension is the organization’s leader. Sun Tzu teaches that leaders must be honest. In the end, people will only follow you into war or in business if they can trust you. Sun Tzu teaches that the essence of war is controlling people’s perceptions. For Sun Tzu, strategy is a long-term, systematic approach to success. While dishonesty can offer some types of temporary advantages, it always works against us in the long run, whether we realize it our not.

For Sun Tzu, the strategic process of advancing our position is opportunistic, but he defines opportunism as a form of mutual dependence. He teaches that we don’t create our opportunities because they are part of the larger environment (heaven and earth, the last two of his five factors), which we cannot control. Sun Tzu teaches that we depend on others to create opportunities for us. Every marketplace has unfulfilled needs, just as every business has weaknesses. Both are opportunities for improving our position, and quite often those opportunities are disguised as problems. We do not recognize these opportunities simply because we are not trained to see them in the challenges that face us.

To be successful in marketing, we must learn how to leverage the opportunities that others give us. We can only do this if we build our businesses on a solid foundation of ethics. Without that solid ethical foundation, we cannot build long-term success from taking advantage of opportunities because people eventually find us out. In today’s world, our business practices are more transparent than ever.

About The Art of War and the Science of Strategy Institute: In The Art of War, Sun Tzu offers a wealth of detailed information about continuously improving our position in a way that unites people and brings them together. Though the book takes only a few hours to read, understanding how these principles work is difficult because they are often counter intuitive. This is why we developed The Warrior Class, our free (to our book owners) on-line training site that offers slide shows, lessons, and self-scoring tests to make it easy to master Sun Tzu’s strategic principles.

To learn more, visit The Science of Strategy website.

Related posts:

1. No First Strike In Chivalry
2. Bullies, Business and Chivalry
3. Iron Clad Chivalry

Truthfully, the modern world (like every age) is a product of the people who came before — and seeing the similarities between this and times past allows us to achieve a much clearer vision of where we’re going, and how to avoid the pitfalls along the way.

For those who believe today’s world is the very zenith of enlightened thought and progressive culture, a comparison to the Middle Ages might be especially surprising, possibly even offensive. After all, medieval Europe was practically the definition of superstition, repression and violence. Those were the “Dark Ages” that we’ve worked so hard to escape with advances in science, politics, art and human rights.

But although the stereotypical image of the medieval world is one of filth, plagues, ignorance, barbarian hordes, and witch burning, the Middle Ages was also a period of phenomenal growth, discovery and advancement – something that is explored in detail in the new book How To Run The World: Charting A Course To The Next Renaissance, by author and “global futurist” Parag Khanna. On a recent interview on the KERA’s midday talk show Think, Khanna drew the parallels between today’s world and that of the 11th century this way:

Author and political/cultural commentator Parag Khanna.

A thousand years ago, the world was truly multi-polar. That’s a word that people hear all the time, because of the rise of China, the rise of India, the Middle Eastern countries, Brazil … a thousand years ago (things were similar), China was the most advanced civilization, the Song dynasty; the Chola empire of India ruled the seas … the Arab and Islamic empires, the caliphates, from Baghdad and Cairo ruled all the way from Africa to Central Asia … The other reason that’s interesting is that that was a world before modern states. So it was a world where cities, companies, merchants, mercenaries, religious groups, they were all very powerful and competing for loyalty … All of these different players were in an overlapping, competitive set of authorities, really, everyone trying to win hearts and minds, and money for themselves. That really does feel a lot like the world of today.

This isn’t merely a geographic similarity, Khanna claims. In an article in the Financial Times, Khanna explained that power and authority in the medieval world wasn’t a monopoly of the government, or even the church. He points out that cities, like London, Paris or Venice, wielded tremendous cultural and economic influence, often practically eclipsing the kings and clerics who technically governed them. Also, the boundaries between individual spheres of influence were very nebulous: An individual might be a military commander (a knight), a diplomat, a merchant and a patron of the arts – all at the same time! In that regard, personal authority, networking, family ties and philanthropy often had more effect on society than laws and religious doctrine did — not unlike powerful CEOs, entrepreneurs, NGOs, and officials today who have international corporate, government and cultural influence.

In short, Khanna says: What we live in today is the Middle Ages on steroids.

That’s an interesting premise. But, needless to say, there are some drawbacks to living in a modernized Middle Ages. Just as in the medieval world, when the rightful government or recognized authority is corrupt, powerless or subservient to other entities, problems and conflicts quickly arise. (Does this sound familiar?) If the 21st century is “the Middle Ages on steroids,” with all the inherent problems of medieval society writ large, maybe part of the solution to our current woes is a code of chivalry on steroids.

Remember, that crude, ignorant world of the Middle Ages gave rise to the beauty and enlightenment of the Renaissance. (Though the medieval world wasn’t as “crude” as its generally portrayed, nor in many cases was the Renaissance as “enlightened” as we might think.) One of the factors that precipitated that change was the code of chivalry. Of course, Renaissance chivalry was very different from its medieval predecessor. The concept had undergone a gradual transformation from a set of roughly defined customs that addressed soldiers’ actions in battle and training, to a broad, encompassing code of social principles that reached into nearly every aspect of life. The chivalry of the 16th century was idealistic, romantic, and refined. Chivalry influenced art, culture, science, economics, and politics — for good in some cases, and for ill in others.

Today, a new, idealized sense of chivalry might provide some much-needed inspiration in the same sort of way. What sort of discoveries and advances might be made if science and industry was motivated by a sense of knightly adventure and wonder, rather than profit or self-interest? What social or political issues might be resolved if reliability and honesty became the motivators for public service instead of influence pedaling and political partisanship? What sort of benefits could be offered if financial and commercial enterprises were focused on protecting and championing their clientele, rather than exploiting and deceiving them?

To be sure, this isn’t meant to imply that the historical ideals of chivalry were perfect, or even blameless in some of the unfortunate events that took place in the post-medieval world, from religious wars to subjugation of native populations. But in the waning centuries of the Middle Ages, chivalry provided noble, inspiring ideals to live up to, even if only a relatively small number of people actually did so.

Obviously, the comparison between the Middle Ages and the world of the 21st century can only be taken so far. But if we’re willing to put aside our automatic defensive reactions at being compared to a less-than-ideal period of history and take an objective look at things, then Khanna’s “Middle Ages on steroids” descriptor might provide an intriguing lens through which we can reconsider some of the challenges and opportunities we face today.

Similarly, if we set aside the notion of chivalry as an outdated, militaristic, impractical, or romantic standard, we might see that creating a code of chivalry “on steroids,” with an enhanced commitment to the ideals of social justice, global stewardship, personal integrity, cultural camaraderie, and political responsibility could provide a powerful template of ethics and morality that would be applicable in arenas from the local community to the emerging global economy. A bulked-up code of chivalry could be the foundation for a 21st century super-Renaissance.

Below: Watch an interview with Parag Khanna on the PBS news show Need To Know, to hear him discuss his concept of “the Middle Ages on steroids.”

Watch the full episode. See more Need To Know.

Related posts:

1. Women’s Roles Part 2: Chivalry & Today’s Heroic Lady Role Models
2. Chivalry: Yesterday and Today
3. Women and Chivalry

Recent news reports indicate that public trust today – in companies, in government and in the media – is at an all-time low. You don’t have to be a psychologist to figure out why: This decade has been one in which scandals and corruption of epic proportion has been revealed, and in many cases people, governments and corporations all over the planet are still reeling from the destructive results of these “crises of trust.”

That such a “minor” thing as trust can have such a devastating impact on commerce and society will come as no surprise to anyone who has studied the ideals of chivalry. Trust, truthfulness and fidelity were among the most valued qualities of a knight – in a world where written words were scarce, a knight’s “word of honor” was perhaps the most valuable measure of character. Shakespeare called this “the bubble reputation” – a reminder that the good name a knight built was a fragile thing that needed to be carefully guarded.

Today’s corporate entities and government agencies could learn a thing or two about the value of trust – and the challenges of “trust building” – from those medieval practitioners of chivalry. Lie to the people who trust you at your own peril … one gust of an ill wind is all it takes to burst the bubble reputation once and for all.

In this piece, reprinted from the Trust Advisor blog by business author and consultant Charles H. Green, Peter Firestein (author of Crisis of Character: Building Corporate Reputation in the Age of Skepticism) talks about the importance of trust in business, particularly in a time of economic troubles and low consumer confidence.

Charles H. Green: One thing that struck me (in the book Crisis of Character) was the insistence on reputation as being built inside out: the only sensible strategy is to be the company you want your stakeholders to see.

Peter Firestein: One of the book’s early titles was “The Glass House,” meaning, of course, that you can’t fake things for very long any more. Just thinking about the failed obfuscations attempted by some big corporations in recent years can bring actual, physical pain.

When I say you have to “build reputation from the inside out,” I mean that managers have to create reporting and communications structures that not only disseminate values throughout the organization, but absorb the workforce’s on-the-ground experience all the way to the top. Every action the company takes, therefore, represents its core value system. And the workforce’s day-to-day reality informs senior decision-making.

I call this “vertical communication,” and I think it reduces the likelihood that a CEO will wake up some day to find that a regional manager has been found to have bribed a government official, or a sub-contracted factory is discriminating against female employees, or an accidental dump of toxic waste has disappeared from company records somewhere down the line.

There are few small failures in big business. In fact, the depth of failure often presents a mirror image of success that preceded it. True vertical communication that extends throughout the organization helps you spend your life thinking about other things.

CHG: (H)ow you see the relationship between trust and reputation?

PF: If there’s a difference between high trust and strong reputation, I’m blind to it. Both trust and reputation—whether high or low—are expectations of future experience based on what is known about the past. That’s how people differ from markets. The legal disclaimer on any financial offering warns that past performance does not indicate future results. With human beings, it generally does.

CHG: You provide a very real-world example of exactly how a big company should go about recovering from a reputational slip, and what impressed me about it was your recommendation of aggressive, pro-active engagement. Say more about that?

PF: Here’s how pro-active you ought to be. You start preparing for the next crisis five years before it happens. And you don’t need a crystal ball for this. If you’re a multi-national company of scale, it’s impossible to avoid reputational mishaps. Some day, somewhere, someone will—intentionally or by neglect—commit a reputation-compromising act in your name. The inevitability must be an integral part of your thinking. So, you have to have a culture in place well in advance that enables you to respond appropriately to events that never crossed your mind before they happened.

People call it crisis communications, but it’s much more than that. Communications, by itself, never fixed anything. People also call it crisis management. But the crisis has already occurred, so the opportunity to manage it is past. You could call it management of the aftermath, and the only way to manage the aftermath effectively is to participate in it.

Which means, to some degree, participating in the emotions of those you have harmed. Referring to a person in the CEO position, the corporation becomes the person, and vice versa. If, as an individual, you have empathy toward a family who’s lost a father or a mother, you have to show that same empathy as a corporation.

Beyond this, the best piece of advice available on the subject is to resist the temptation to let your lawyers protect you. They can’t. There’s a short list of companies that have come out of disasters with stronger reputations than they’d had before. In all cases, they did so because they were able to identify with those who were angry with them. Enlightened leadership means understanding there’s no Plan B …

Read the full interview with Peter Firestein, along with several other interviews on trust in business in the Trusted Advisor blog, written by Charles H. Green.

Related posts:

1. In Chivalry We Trust
2. Faith, Money and Chivalry
3. The U.S. Army & Chivalry

If there was such a thing as the Chivalry Awards, perhaps the following would be this year’s winners. But chivalrous people don’t follow their ideals to get trophies or make speeches – they simply do what needs to be done, and set the examples that need to be set, in order to make the world a better place.

Instead, let’s call these The High Points In Chivalry of 2009:

The campus of the Harvard Business School

5) The Harvard MBA Oath — Having seen too many unsavory management practices, several members of the 2009 graduating class of the Harvard Business School felt the time had come to show there were still decent people in the business world. During the spring semester, class members put together a simple eight-point oath of ethics that could be applied in any sector in the world of business. The oath included statements such as, “I will manage my enterprise in good faith,” “I will understand and uphold, both in letter and in sprit, the laws and contracts governing my … enterprise,” and “I will be accountable to my peers.” Their goal was a modest one: To get just 100 members of their class to sign the oath. In the end, however, not 100, but 900 students put their names to the oath – over half of the graduating class. And as news of this movement spread, business students all over the world began to take up the cause. To date, the Harvard MBA Ethics Oath has been adopted (voluntarily) by hundreds of schools around the globe; more than 1,700 students have signed it so far, and the list continues to grow every day. It seems there are still men and women in the business world who want to be champions instead of sharks.

Cardinals first baseman Albert Pujols (left) was first on the scene to help an injured fan.

4) Albert Pujols Tends An Injured Fan — At a baseball game between the Pittsburgh Pirates and the St. Louis Cardinals on Aug. 7, a fan in the stands made an enthusiastic reach for a foul ball … and would up taking a literal nose dive over the wall and onto the field. The on-call EMTs rushed to take care of fellow, but paramedics and fans alike were surprised to see a white uniform at the injured fan’s side — that of number 5, Albert Pujols. The Cardinal’s first baseman stayed with the man for more than 10 minutes as the EMTs bandaged a severe laceration on his face, then reassured the man’s son that everything would be okay as they were taken to a nearby hospital. (The incident earned Pujols the AT&T Sportsmanship Award.) Although taking time away from an important game to tend to an injured spectator isn’t exactly “business as usual” for a top-ranking pro athlete, Pujols’ fans weren’t surprised by the incident — Pujols is known for using his off season to do charity and humanitarian work in the Dominican Republic where he grew up. This incident is just a reminder that a highly successful athlete (Pujols is a multiple All-Star and MVP recipient) can also be a knight in shining armor.

President Barack Obama

3) The U.S. President Takes A Bow — On Nov. 14, President Barak Obama raised some eyebrows when he lowered his head in a traditional bow as he was introduced to Emperor Akihito during a political visit to Japan. Politics aside, this gesture was an effective reminder of the simple principle of humility. As many commentators (from both sides of the political aisle) pointed out, bowing in this circumstance was not a sign of submission or deference, but simply a show of good manners. Even the most powerful man in the world should be gracious (and confident) enough to respect the customs of hospitality when he is visiting someone’s home. (In the 14th century, the King of England once considered it a great honor when, at a royal dinner, he personally knelt beside and served the visiting King of France – not as an act of submission, but as a display of the proper devotion of a host.) In the ideals of chivalry, power and authority should always be coupled with humbleness and sensitivity.

2) A New Moon Rises Over Chivalry – The motion picture New Moon opened on Nov. 20, and this second installment in the Twilight vampire saga based on the books of Stephanie Meyer had the a lot of critics and media analysts buzzing about an unfamiliar topic: chivalry. The cinematic merits of New Moon may be up for debate, but this movie has both pop culture pundits and American teenagers discussing the ideals and practices of chivalry with a sort of dignity and clarity that hasn’t been done in decades. In many ways, the supernatural characters of the Twilight saga resemble the iconic knights of Arthurian legend: Stronger and more powerful than average mortals, and struggling to restrain both their amorous and combative instincts because of the inspiration of love and honor. New Moon’s opening broke box office records all across the board – a fine demonstration that a powerful message of chivalry can still appeal to a broad audience.

A ferry diverts course to help survivors of Flight 1549 as they wait calmly for rescue.

1) Flight 1549 Lands In The Hudson River – Americans were shocked to hear the news on Jan. 15 of a jet airliner that crashed in the Hudson River shortly after takeoff. They were equally stunned – and inspired – by the stories of the evacuation and rescue of the survivors. Passengers, crew and officers, led by Captain Chesley Sullengerber, acted and reacted with dignity, courage and compassion. Rescue personnel and bystanders alike rushed in to help with little thought to their own safety. President George Bush himself commended everyone involved and said, “the skill and heroism of the flight crew as well as the dedication and selflessness of the emergency responders and volunteers” was an inspiration to all. The incident was dubbed “The Miracle on the Hudson,” a reminder to everyone that the world is full of heroes, and that chivalry is alive and well.

This blog entry is part of the Group Writing Project: 2009 In Review, sponsored by DailyBlogTips.

Related posts:

1. Faith, Money and Chivalry
2. Sun Tzu In Competition With Chivalry
3. Join The “50 By 50″ Drive – Don’t Let Chivalry Today Die

What Does It Mean To Be A Leader?

Leadership isn’t simply the willingness to go to any length to “get the job done.” Leaders demand accountability and respect where others settle for excuses, abuses and shortcuts.

Being a leader means seeing the difference between quick victory and long-term success. Being a leader means knowing how to achieve goals without venturing into self-serving, unscrupulous, exploitative practices and actions. Being a leader means requiring (and inspiring) nothing less than honorable, noble, chivalrous behavior from the people you work with — and thus, by extension, from yourself as well.

Ironically, being a “chivalrous leader” is a provocative proposition in today’s world, where principles and accountability are frequently set aside in exchange for immediate results and no-questions-asked profits. There’s a prevailing perception that professional standards are nothing but speed-bumps on the road to gain and achievement. We seem to be losing sight of the fact that these two concepts — honor and success — can actually go hand-in-hand.

That’s what this section of the Chivalry Today website was created for, to answer the question: Can the Code of Chivalry be used as a guide for honorable and effective leadership practices?

With so many examples of professional, political, athletic and academic scandals in the news today, this question is more timely and topical than ever. If you’re looking for a unique, colorful means of bringing new vigor, pride and reward to your team, your office or your students then prepare to explore the “leadership secrets” of the Code of Chivalry. What you read in the following articles may just change your mind about what it means to be a leader.

Related posts:

1. The True Secret of Leadership
2. A Leader Defined
3. Chivalry Goes To The Dogs

Managers and business executives often use the image of a predator to describe their own style of leadership philosophy. Managers who want to inspire aggression and vigor often call their team members “sharks” and their organizations “wolf packs.” We think of predators as powerful and ruthless in their pursuit of prey, which maybe why managers eagerly employ predatory images when trying to condone a “succeed at any cost” approach to business. A predator would never let anything as arbitrary as honesty, loyalty or trust get in the way of success — or so we’ve been led to believe. Perhaps this is why the predator is often seen as the antithesis of the “knight in shining armor” in a competitive environment.

Author Cesar Millan, however, knows a thing or two about leadership among predators. Cesar is best known as the dog-handler to the stars from his show Dog Whisperer on the National Geographic Channel. He uses an innovative, instinctive approach to dog training based on pack dynamics rather than pain or intimidation. Cesar knows exactly how to establish himself, literally, as the top dog in a pack of predators — and he’s become a sought-after consultant not just among celebrities who have problem pooches, but also among successful corporations looking for ways to establish strong leadership principles among their executives.

Cesar’s latest book, Be The Pack Leader, examines how badly humans have misapplied pack behavior in an attempt to create effective leadership techniques through deceit, intimidation and deception. But Cesar says that predators don’t behave this way, and successful leaders can’t afford to either. As Cesar points out, real predators don’t lie, equivocate or misrepresent themselves — to become a leader among predators you must be absolutely honest and trustworthy. This excerpt from his book reveals just how important the principle of faithfulness is among leaders of all kinds, from dog walkers to executives and politicians. Ceasar reminds us that a real predator has a lot in common with a knight in shining armor.

A knight can be the leader of the pack

If you ever wonder where the American people came up with the idea that the dog should be out in front of the walk, take a look at a film, video or photograph of any President of the United States getting off Air Force One. Who’s the first one out of the plane? Who’s the first one into the White House? Ronald Regan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush — all of them trail behind their dogs on the White House lawn. In the animal world, position means a lot. And in all of these images, the dogs are going first. In my lifetime, I haven’t seen a powerful breed dog in the White House yet. I’ve seen Labradors. I’ve seen lots of terriers, a lot of the softer breeds. But a Rottweiler? A pit bull? Not since JFK have you seen a German shepherd in the White House nor Rhodesian ridgebacks, or Belgian Malinois, or mastiffs. If you had a powerful breed in the White House no one would ever get to meet with the President. Why? Because if Presidents can’t control their terriers or happy-go-lucky labs, how could they control a powerful breed? You’d have 10 secret service agents trying to handle one dog, because it would be a dog without a pack leader.

I got a lot of applause during one seminar when I suggested that everybody write letters to Congress and suggest that before anyone gets sworn in as President, he or she has to learn how to walk a powerful dog. Maybe even a pack of dogs! It would be a test they’d all have to pass. All world leaders of all countries should be able to do it. If that actually happened, then all of our human pack leaders would have to practice calm-assertive energy, because that’s the only energy that dogs naturally follow. I believe we’d have a lot more balanced people running the world if they based their leadership on calm-assertive energy.

You see, animals don’t follow unstable pack leaders; only humans promote, follow and praise instability. Only humans have leaders who can lie and get away with it. Around the world, most of the pack leaders we follow today are not stable. Their followers may not know it, but Mother Nature is far too honest to be fooled by angry, frustrated, jealous, competitive, stubborn or other negative energy — even if it is masked by a politician’s smile. That’s because all animals can evaluate and discern what balanced energy feels like. A dog cannot evaluate how intelligent a human is, or how rich, or how powerful or how popular. A dog doesn’t care if a leader has a Ph.D. from Harvard, or is a five-star general. But that dog can definitely tell a stable human from an unstable one. We humans continue to follow the unstable energy of our leaders — which is why we don’t live in a peaceful, balanced world.

Being a pack leader is not about showing “who’s boss.” Natural pack leaders do not control their followers by fear. They sometimes have to challenge or display their authority, but most of the time they are calm, benevolent leaders. Remember, dogs are predators. They are social animals, but they are also social carnivores — and deep in their DNA is the wolf in them that wants to hunt and kill prey.

President Theodore Roosevelt once said:

People ask the difference between a leader and a boss … The leader works in the open, and the boss in covert. The leader leads and the boss drives.

In order for your dog to follow, you cannot be just a boss. You must be a guide, an inspiration, a true leader, from the inside out.

© 2008 Cesar Millan

About The Author: Cesar Millan is the founder of the Dog Psychology Center in Los Angeles, and the star of Dog Whisperer on the National Geographic Channel. He is author of several books on canine handling and psychology, including his latest, Be The Pack Leader.»

Related posts:

1. A Leader Defined
2. Leadership and Chivalry
3. New Millennium Round Table

What is it you came here to learn? That honesty, compassion and integrity are indispensable leadership qualities? Actually, if you’re reading this, I suspect you already know that.

Or, did you come here to be told something else? Are you looking for someone who will say that being honorable, chivalrous and trustworthy will guarantee you profits, popularity and success? If so, you may be in for a shock, because none of those things is true.

The fact of the matter is that holding yourself to a standard of principles and ethics, like the Code of Chivalry, is like going into a battle with one hand tied behind your back. When you’re in fierce, spirited competition, a sense of honor becomes a very palpable hindrance — a small, fragile roadblock placed in front of a very short and easy path to success.

As any number of proud warriors, wise philosophers or great leaders throughout history would undoubtedly have told you, honor is a very difficult road to follow. The trail is a long and winding one, and when you get to the end you’re likely to find that all those folks who were willing to step over the roadblocks and take the shortcuts have finished the race ahead of you. And there is a great temptation to think, “Next time, I think I’ll take the short and easy path too. Why not? Everyone else is … ”

Obviously, the reasons for taking the longer road are self-respect, character and dignity. I’d like to tell you those are prizes that are clearly and indisputably worth every lost sale, missed opportunity and diminished financial return — but I’d be lying to you if I did. Dignity and self-respect can be bitter compensation when someone else has landed the big account, won the trophy or gotten the coveted promotion because they were willing to cut the corners, tell the lies and stoop to the depths that you would not.

I’d also like to tell you that there was a poignant, affirmational conclusion to this article, but that’s not the case either. Although trust, teamwork, fair play and optimism are necessary components for good and effective leadership, they can be subverted by exploitation, corruption and manipulation in almost any given situation.

But those of us who value chivalry and honor must go into our battles with open eyes so that we’re not caught by surprise when we come across the sleazy, dishonest path. We have to acknowledge what we’re giving up in order to strengthen ourselves against the innocent temptation to take just one step beyond that roadblock, just to see where that short, easy path will lead.

I hope you didn’t come here to learn that being a chivalrous leader will instantly make you more money, get you a nicer office or entice people to eagerly follow your example. Some of those things may follow eventually, but on this road there are no guarantees. You may spend your life toiling in obscurity, only to find that the long, winding path never reaches the destination you’d hoped for.

Being a chivalrous leader, however, means you don’t have to cross your fingers when you talk to your children about commitment and responsibility. It means you’ll never have to review your mental list of “who knows what” before starting a conversation. It means you can look in the mirror each morning and be satisfied with what you see there.

Is that enough? If you’re a leader, it’s a question you’ll ask yourself each and every day; it’s a question only you will know the answer to. That answer will probably be the most important “leadership secret” you’ll ever find.

Related posts:

1. Leadership and Chivalry
2. What is Chivalry?
3. Podcast 47: Chivalry And A Modern Morte Darthur

The topics of codes of ethics and honorable leadership are not limited to corporate giants and Fortune 500 companies. Creating and maintaining a standard of honor and chivalry is one of the greatest challenges for a small business owner. In an environment where budgets are shoestring tight, as they are in most business start-ups, it’s easy to let immediate profits eclipse the principles of honor and ethics. This guide from the U.S. Small Business Administration may help entrepreneurs (and owners of all types of business) understand the value of leading with honor, respect and chivalry.

Honor and the Entrepreneur

Business ethics are a hot topic these days. With everything from insider trading to employee theft on the rise, it is no wonder that businesses are beginning to focus on the impact of ethical leadership. But along with this new focus comes a lot of “gray area.” Many times, managers are forced to decide on issues where there are arguments on both sides — a problem that makes ethical decision-making very difficult.

Three Standards for Honorable Leadership

Sally started her consulting business a year ago and has been doing very well. About a month ago, she decided she needed to hire someone to help her since she was getting busier and busier. After interviewing several candidates, she decided to hire the best one of the group, Mary. She called Mary on Monday to tell her she had gotten the job. They both agreed that she would start the following Monday and that Mary could come in and fill out all of the hiring paperwork at that time.

The next day a friend of Sally’s called her to say that she had found the perfect person for Sally. Sally explained that she had already hired someone, but the friend insisted. “Just meet this girl. Who knows, maybe you might want to hire her in the future!”

Rather reluctantly, Sally consented. “Alright, if she can come in tomorrow, I’ll meet with her, but that’s all.”

“Oh, I’m so glad. I just know you’re going to like her!” Sally’s friend exclaimed.

And Sally did like her. She like her a lot. Sally had met with Julie on Wednesday morning. Julie was everything that Sally had been looking for and more. In terms of experience, Julie far surpassed any of the candidates Sally had previously interviewed — including Mary, the woman Sally had already promised the job to.

On top of that, Julie was willing to bring in clients of her own, which would only increase business. All in all, Sally knew this was a win-win situation.

But what about Mary? She had already given her word to Mary that she could start work on Monday.

And yet she only had the resources to hire one person at this point. Clearly, the best business decision was to hire Julie. But what about the ethical decision? If her business did poorly or Mary couldn’t provide enough support, the business would suffer. As a result, her family would suffer. Money was already tight. And yet she knew Mary also had a family she was supporting. Plus, she had been so enthusiastic about starting to work.

Obviously, Sally had a problem — an ethical problem. Should she hire Mary (whom she’d already given her word) or Julie (who was obviously the best person for the job)?

Questions like these touch on our deepest values. Depending on who you ask, you would get strong arguments for both decisions. This is what we mean when we talk about “gray area.” So what is the answer?

According to Kenneth Blanchard and Norman Vincent Peale, authors of The Power of Ethical Management,» there are three questions you should ask yourself whenever you are faced with an ethical dilemma such as this one:

1. Is it legal? In other words, will you be violating any criminal laws, civil laws or company policies by engaging in this activity?
2. Is it balanced? Is it fair to all parties concerned both in the short-term as well as the long-term? Is this a win-win situation for those directly as well as indirectly involved?
3. Is it right? Most of us know the difference between right and wrong, but when push comes to shove, how does this decision make you feel about yourself? Are you proud of yourself for making this decision? Would you like others to know you made the decision you did?

Most of the time, when dealing with “gray decisions,” just one of these questions is not enough. But by taking the time to reflect on all three, you will often times find that the answer becomes very clear.

Five Qualities of an Honorable Entrepreneur

There are definite advantages to owning your own business when you want to establish an ethics policy. You see, ethics come from the top. Without setting an example at the top, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to convince your employees that they too should be ethical in their business dealings.

A well-defined ethics policy along with an outline of related standards of conduct provides the framework for ethical, moral behavior within your company.

What is the benefit to developing such a policy, you may be wondering. The benefit is higher employee morale and commitment, which in most cases leads to higher profits. But higher profits should not be your motivating factor in defining your ethics policy.

An ethics policy should look at the bigger picture of how we relate to society as a whole and what our responsibility is to the greater good. Of course, in these days of downsizing and increasing change, some may argue that these ideals are unrealistic. However, it is important to note that most of the opponents of good ethics are focusing on short-term versus long-term results.

Many organizations that have participated in the downsizing mania are beginning to realize that they have traded long-term employee morale and productivity for short-term profit margins.

The bottom line is, “what goes around, comes around.” If you treat your employees with disrespect and distrust, chances are they will do the same toward you.

When you are developing your ethics policy, you must decide what it is you want your company to stand for, put it in writing, and enforce it. According to The Power of Ethical Management,» you can base your policy on five fundamental principles:

• Purpose. A purpose combines both your vision as well as the values you would like to see upheld in your business. It comes from the top and outlines specifically what is considered acceptable as well as unacceptable in terms of conduct in your business.
• Pride. Pride builds dignity and self-respect. If employees are proud of where they work and what they are doing, they are much more apt to act in an ethical manner.
• Patience. Since you must focus on long-term versus short-term results, you must develop a certain degree of patience. Without it, you will become too frustrated and will be more tempted to choose unethical alternatives.
• Persistence. Persistence means standing by your word. It means being committed. If you are not committed to the ethics you have outlined, then they become worthless. Stand by your word.
• Perspective. In a world where there is never enough time to do everything we need or want to do, it is often difficult to maintain perspective. However, stopping and reflecting on where your business is headed, why you are headed that way, and how you are going to get there allows you to make the best decisions both in the short-term as well as the long-term.

A company policy is a reflection of the values deemed important to the business. As you develop your ethics policy, focus on what you would like the world to be like, not on what others tell you it is.

© 2006 Small Business Administration

This article is reprinted from the Management Library of the Small Business Administration. The SBA has a variety of resources and information available on-line to help managers and business owners operate their businesses safely, effectively and ethically.

Related posts:

1. Chivalry Prevents Business Meltdowns
2. Business and Chivalry
3. Bullies, Business and Chivalry

Too many executives, politicians and bureaucrats today believe that simply “getting the job done” is a show of leadership. They forget that being a leader means inspiring, not just organizing. In fact, I’ve been in many organizations where the leader — the person who truly sets the ethical and philosophical tone for the working group — is not the person who is “in charge.” When a manager sets the goals, then allows someone else to determine the methods by which those goals are achieved, the results can be catastrophic.

Who do the people on your team look to as the leader? As Brian McCormick, director of the on-line Leader Network reminds us, chivalrous, honorable and productive actions are crucial for anyone who wants to be the real leader, not just the person who maintains the to-do list.

Chivalry is more than mere management

What is a Leader?

• A leader is someone who people choose to follow, period.
• A leader influences others to do things that they may not otherwise do.
• Through the initiatives undertaken by the remarkable leaders recognized by this organization, those leaders improve the lives of affiliated individuals and organizations.
• Ideally, the effective leader is a person of integrity.
• It takes no title to be a leader, and it is crucial to understand the difference between managing and leading. Philosophically, a person must be a leader first, then a manager. A leader can be a manager, but a manager is not necessarily a leader, although frequently organizations confuse the two. The comparison below clarifies the difference between leaders and managers.

Manager: You have your affairs managed — when you are managed you are told what to do.

Leader: You follow a leader willingly, by choice.

Manager: Merely oversight.

Leader: Decision making.

Manager: People either abide by or rebel against someone they simply view as a boss.

Leader: People follow their leader.

Manager: A position of authority bestowed upon someone.

Leader: A position of respect earned by actions.

What does a leader do?

• Motivate
• Strategize
• Enlighten
• Inspire
• Act
• Plan
• Build
• Institute
• Produce

The leader sets the course and makes sure everyone in the canoe is paddling in the same direction.

© 2005 Brian McCormick

This article is reprinted by permission from the Leader Network Program, “recognizing, promoting and connecting leaders.”

Related posts:

1. Leadership and Chivalry
2. New Millennium Round Table
3. Chivalry Goes To The Dogs

Imagine you have the “perfect” job — working for a Fortune 500 company, or maybe a respected government agency, with a prestigious executive title. Your family is happy and healthy, you live in an upscale suburban neighborhood, drive a handsome automobile and your salary is enough to allow your spouse to stay at home and be a full-time parent. Career-wise, you are “set for life.”

Then, one day, you discover a dark, horrible secret lurking in a forgotten filing cabinet …

Not too long ago, we thought of “heroes” as people who won battles or saved children from burning buildings. As we learn about the Code of Chivalry Today, however, we see that heroes don’t exist only in epic tales of glory and adventure. A hero can also sit at a desk, carry a briefcase, drive a minivan and tuck the kids in at night.

“Whistleblower” is a phrase used to describe a person who steps forward to reveal some form of impropriety. In the past year we have seen powerful examples of the courage and heroism required to be a whistleblower, a defender of the truth, a knight in shining armor of the 21st century.

Sherron Watkins, a vice-president at Enron, confronted the company’s chairman with documents she found that revealed massive accounting irregularities. Cynthia Cooper, an internal auditor at WorldCom, went before the board to expose nearly $4 billion in cover-ups. Coleen Rowley, a staff attorney at the FBI field office in Minneapolis, sent several memos to the director that proved the Bureau overlooked warnings about the 9/11 attacks.

Of course, being heroic is easy if your courage brings you acclaim and admiration; these women knew they were destined for anything but. They knew their supervisors wanted them to stay quiet, but they also knew they would have to look themselves in the mirror each morning, and they chose the path of self-respect instead of convenience.

Two days after her meeting, Watkins was threatened with termination, then her computer was confiscated, she was moved from her plush office into a tiny cubicle and given meaningless make-work jobs until she resigned. Cooper was personally blamed for the 17,000 layoffs that occurred after the cover-up she exposed became public, and she became a pariah within the company. Rowley received bags of mail from fellow FBI agents demanding her resignation and comparing her to convicted spy Robert Hanssen.

These whistleblowers (who were named by TIME Magazine as its “2002 Persons of the Year”) risked their families’ security and put themselves through anguish and heartache because they knew integrity was more valuable than the “perfect” job. They forced all of us to wonder, “If I found that dark, horrible secret in the filing cabinet, would I have the courage do what they did?”

A hero isn’t always the person who charges bravely into battle with banners flying and trumpets blaring. More often, a hero is the person who simply must choose between what’s comfortable and what’s right. These whistleblowing heroes remind us that being a knight in shining armor sometimes means making painful sacrifices in the name of chivalry, honor and leadership.

Read a reprint of the TIME Magazine article at the Time Magazine website. Photo of Cooper, Rowley and Watkins (left to right) copyright Gregory Heisler for TIME Magazine.

Related posts:

1. The Lion and the Otter
2. Grandfather’s Love and Courage
3. Chivalry, Terrorism and Knights in Shining Armor at Ground Zero

Scott Farrell Comments:

Perhaps no two concepts are further apart in today’s society than “honor” and “salesperson.” Yet, although many people think of sales as an inherently distasteful, dishonest and even dishonorable profession, it does not have to be that way. Salespeople can be ethical and forthright — and still make a profit. There are more than 16 million people working as sales representatives in the U.S. alone, and as the prime money-makers for most businesses, salespeople can become models of leadership within the companies they work for — if they conduct themselves with diginty, chivalry and honor. The National Association of Sales Professionals (who graciously provided this article) is working to restore an image of integrity to salespeople at all levels of industry.

Almost a day doesn’t go by where there isn’t some news report of a firm or individual that has gotten caught for some “wrong doing” in the conduct of business activities. This range is very broad, such as hiring undocumented workers, failing to pay taxes, or deceptive advertising practices — just to name a few. However, what is most important to recognize is that vigilance over the activities of businesses today is greater than ever in the past. Computers, competitors, and disgruntled workers are just a couple of watchdogs that can instantly cause a supposedly well operated business to quickly tumble into the jaws of legal death.

Within the vast sea of opportunity for any business or person to get in trouble lurks the sales function. Probably no other activity is so laden with chances to destroy a company or individual’s career. To truly understand this, let’s first take a look back into the history of selling here in the U.S.

As the country was being settled from east to west, transportation and communication were critical factors that controlled the rate of growth and expansion. In other words, it was difficult to market anything into remote areas because there was no way for a buyer to transmit an order back to a company. By “remote” is meant areas of the country which did not have any rail, mail or telegraph service. For people living in these parts, their buying needs were satisfied by wagon merchants.

This type of traveling salesperson literally hauled merchandise from town to town and sold products right off of the wagons. As can be imagined, wagon merchants had a strong incentive to close any orders right on the spot for fear of losing the prospect to the next wagon merchant that would hit town a couple days behind them. These same traveling merchants would also take orders for custom merchandise which they would deliver on their next visit or have shipped via rail to a larger town for pickup by the customer.

If anyone ever wondered where all those jokes came from years ago about the “traveling salesman and the farmers daughter,” this is it. In fact, some of these “visitors” were so bad in character that husbands forbid their wives to be out in public while these men were still in town.

Traveling salespeople in those days could not be paid any other way than just straight commission. There was just no alternative because it was impossible to manage how they spent their time, as opposed to someone working under local supervision. Therefore, the theory was “no sales — no income.” Another factor was the wagon merchants who bought merchandise at wholesale prices direct from the manufacturer and resold everything at a higher price. Thus, failure to sell anything when visiting a particular town was financial disaster. Additionally, there was a big desire to sell everything that was in the wagon before returning back for more new inventory.

One has only to imagine the persuasive selling tactics employed by this group of roving salespeople. In fact, this resulted in many wagon merchants only hitting an area just once, because the personal guarantees they made about some of the questionable products they sold cultivated some very angry customers who couldn’t wait to get their hands on that particular salesman. Very often they would never see that person again.

These historical factors provide a brief glimpse into why salespeople today have the heritage of such a poor reputation. In fact, no other profession in the world suffers from so much negative “public relations.”

Another facet about the relationship between sales and ethics is the lack of preparation and planning needed in order to work as a salesperson. To begin with, few people grow up desiring to be in sales in the first place. Often, most young people fall into it because they can’t get any other type of “real” job. Second, nothing is taught in classrooms about sales, either at the high school or college level. Even though over 16 million people in the U.S. work in some form of sales today, few schools recognize sales as a valid career path. To them, it’s something no mother should ever want her offspring to become.

So, now we have the picture of a career that takes no prescribed training or qualifications to get into, has no on-going education requirements, and represents the type of work that people seek when they have failed at everything else. No wonder it can serve as a haven for dishonest people!

© 2005 National Assn. of Sales Professionals.

This article is reprinted from the website of the National Association of Sales Professionals as part of their Ethics Study Guide. After reading this overview of sales ethics, NASP members are encouraged to review the group’s series of ethical case studies and consider how the principles of honor and ethics can be applied in “real world” situations — Chivalry Today readers are invited to do the same. This article is reprinted courtesy of the NASP and may not be reproduced in any way without their permission.

Related posts:

1. The Ethical-Legal Dilemmas of Sales
2. “Curb Your Tongue, Knave!”
3. Do You Create Liars?

As we all know, there is often a big difference between what is “legal” and what is “ethical.” Unscrupulous sales professionals often prowl that gray zone in order to meet quotas, lure clients and make profits. In the second part of this article, we see that a salesperson can’t resort to mere legality if he or she wants to win (or maintain) the trust of his or her clients.

Now, with all this in proper perspective, let’s look more closely at the issue of sales ethics. An accepted definition of ethics is: The science of moral duty or the science of ideal human character. Therefore, ethics are moral principles or practices. That’s why NASP refers to them as standards of professional conduct. When someone acts in an ethical fashion it means they are conforming to some standard of moral behavior.

Here in the U.S. our body of laws has been used in an attempt to standardize a common code of conduct among all members of society. And while there is a mass of laws at the local, state, and federal level that covers lots of aspects of our business and personal lives, most people know that these laws can’t control everything.

Therefore, most citizens operate their daily lives under a personal code of ethics which dictates things that they will or will not do. For example, take a salesperson who desperately needs a certain order to make quota for the year and tells this to the prospect who wants to delay the order until after the first of the year. The fact here is that while it would be legal to share the information about how bad the rep needs the order, it would be viewed as unethical to do so.

This brings up the concept of the legal-ethical dilemma. Those previously mentioned rules, regulations and laws clearly define activities that are not legal. At this time it would be helpful to briefly review several of the more landmark ones.

First is the Clayton Antitrust Act along with its associated Robinson-Patman Amendment. These represent federal laws that restrict such things as price discrimination where unfair discounts are given to some buyers but not others. In the world of sales, it is a very common situation where a buyer will request “special” or preferential pricing as a condition to placing an order. Or, a buyer will insist on some form of long-term price guarantee that is not offered to others. In each of these cases, it is illegal to do so. However, firms and their respective sales staff often grant these concessions in the effort to secure orders. While there are technical ways to circumvent getting into trouble on these points, the average salesperson typically does not have the knowledge or authority to do so. In the end, it is usually the company that bears the burden of the legal mess, as the salesperson is let off the hook because he or she is merely acting as an agent for the employer. Also, the worst downside for the sales rep is that he or she gets terminated.

The next body of law is the Federal Trade Commission Act and its associated Wheeler-Lea Amendment. This combination of laws governs activities that are deemed as “unfair competition.” Most obvious to salespeople is the tendency when out selling to make statements about competitors which are either false, deceptive, or damaging. Other illegal actions include such things as giving kickbacks and bribes to buyers, either in the form of money or merchandise for personal use. The final significant areas of illegal activities are: misrepresenting the quality of the products being sold; deceptive advertising about pricing, free products, special “discounts;” and misleading claims that are part of the inducement to purchase a product or service.

With the growth of tele-sales today, an entirely new group of laws have been put into effect. For example, people can rescind their decision to buy something within 72 hours if they were solicited over the phone or through the mail. Also, the hours in which telephone sales calls can be made to residences are now restricted.

Now that the legal side has been reviewed, what about the ethics side? Well, the first thing to acknowledge is that the line between the two becomes increasingly blurred when the topic of sales arises. In fact, probably no other line of work has so many opportunities to do something which is classified as legal, but the action itself is unethical. More often than not, unethical behavior occurs when it will directly benefit the salesperson — otherwise why would anyone subject themselves to such behavior in the first place? Take the sales rep who entertains a buyer at lunch and encourages that person to have a couple of alcoholic drinks in order to get him or her loosened up. Then the sales rep lays on some fancy closing techniques that literally catch the buyer off guard to the point they sign the order over lunch. Illegal? No. But unethical? Very much so!

The primary reason salespeople cave in is due to pressure, and that pressure comes from a variety of sources. Previously discussed was the buyer who demands special pricing or other concessions in order to place an order. Other sources are sales managers who refuse to miss making their sales quotas for fear of losing their annual bonus or having their potential for promotion ruined. Sales reps are literally ordered to make sales “at all costs” under these circumstances. Another is the spouse who wants a bigger house, newer car or other pleasures of life so the family can appear to be “keeping up” with the Jones’s next door. There is no limit to how and when these pressures can hit a salesperson. For example, take a well-adjusted sales rep that honors a strong personal code of conduct. How do you think he or she will act out in a sales territory after finding out they now need to spend their entire life savings to pay for an operation for their young child because the procedure is not covered by their health insurance?

Another interesting element that affects ethics is the concept of the risk-reward ratio. In this scenario, a salesperson is financially rewarded more as the level of risk is increased. For example, sales positions in highly competitive markets offer greater income possibilities because the chances for failure are likewise greater. Salespeople in these situations quickly learn that personal actions control the level of money that can be made. The result is often very tempting opportunities that arise which drive a salesperson to exceed the limits of what is right.

The final facet of the ethics problem is what is referred to as role conflict. This is where the salesperson is caught between doing what is best for the employer versus what is best for the prospect or customer. A frequent scenario is a temporary price reduction due to an upcoming marketing promotion . In this case the customer is ready to make the purchase decision right now, yet could save 20 percent by waiting a couple of weeks. The trouble here is the promotion has not yet been announced to the public and if the sales rep voluntarily tells everyone, then he or she will have no orders to turn in for several weeks. And of course, you know what the response of the sales manager would be: Keep your mouth shut!

But what about the customer who relies on the salesperson to also act in the best interests of the client? How are they going to feel about this sales rep after learning by waiting they could have saved money — especially if they didn’t need the merchandise right away?

© 2005 National Assn. of Sales Professionals.

This article is reprinted from the website of the National Association of Sales Professionals as part of their Ethics Study Guide. After reading this overview of sales ethics, NASP members are encouraged to review the group’s series of ethical case studies and consider how the principles of honor and ethics can be applied in “real world” situations — Chivalry Today readers are invited to do the same. This article is reprinted courtesy of the NASP and may not be reproduced in any way without their permission.

Related posts:

1. The Ethical Pitfalls of Selling
2. Defining the Boundaries of Honor in Sales
3. Do You Create Liars?

In the conclusion of this article, the NASP considers the changing role of the salesperson within the global corporate community of the 21st century. No longer is the sales rep a “fly by night” huckster who simply wants to sell as many bottles of snake-oil as possible before leaving town. Today, as whole industries struggle to overcome the effects of scandals and corruption, tolerance for shady, disreputable sales practices is on the decline among both customers and managers. In order to prosper in today’s world, sales representatives need to see themselves as honorable executives who adhere to the leadership principles of the Code of Chivalry.

Another dimension is the well known fact that many people in business think it is ok to “bend the rules” once in a while if it results in getting ahead. This attitude prevails not because it’s permissible, but because few people are seldom caught and punished for these actions. After all, booking that last order of the year that puts you over quota by lying to the prospect about a pending price increase isn’t going to get you fired. At worst, the company will tell you never to do it again — while at the same time handing you a plaque commemorating your quota busting achievement!

Just why do we have this huge “gray area” when it comes to ethics in sales? Well, part of the reason is that each of us has our own definition or standards of what constitutes ethical conduct. Family background, religious beliefs, geographic locale, and industry practices all have an impact. For example, actions that are the norm in the car sales industry are out of the question in selling financial securities. High pressure closing tactics used to sell life insurance would be out of the question in the medical equipment field. Regardless of the cause, in someone else’s eyes people can act unethically because very often their personal belief system says it’s permissible. In other words, they don’t know any different. But in our society today, ethical standards are set by the group as a whole, not the individual. Unfortunately, various groups have differing opinions on what is ethical or not. Therefore, if you are outside of a particular group, then selling practices that you observe or hear about will be interpreted differently than if you belonged to that actual group.

So just how does someone go about deciding what is ethical? Several criteria can be applied to every questionable sales activity to determine this more clearly. The initial test is whether you would want someone to do the same thing to you. How would you feel not getting the whole story about a used car you are going to purchase for your spouse? What if the seller knows, but never states, that the car was in a terrible front end collision and the alignment can never be fixed to where it doesn’t affect the steering? Consider the stockbroker who calls you to buy a new mutual fund that he considers to be a good investment for the future. Of course, you never learn that right now the broker is getting a triple commission during the introductory period from the promoters of the mutual fund as an added incentive.

The next test is whether you would want others in the general public to know what you did. Another way to view this is being prepared to have the buyer stand up before your church congregation and recite every detail they found out about having business dealings with you. Would the things they say all be nice and complimentary, or would the details embarrass you in front of your family and friends? Consider if you had to tell your parents about each and every one of your sales. Would mom or dad be proud of you, or ashamed you are their offspring?

A final guideline is whether or not anyone can suffer any degree of damage by your choice of conduct. It’s similar to the old adage that if there is no victim, then there’s no crime. If there’s no basis for making any future restitution, then chances are you did what was within the confines of ethical behavior. There is also the implied concept of intent here. This queries whether your conduct was intended to deceive, or did it just happen to turn out wrong based on the occurrence of other factors beyond your control? Every salesperson at one time or another has gotten caught in the trap of role conflict. This is especially a sensitive area regarding pricing adjustments, like with temporary sales promotions.

Today it’s very possible for any salesperson to rationalize away the justification for unethical conduct. This is especially true when things aren’t going well in your sales career. That’s when the temptation enters to bend the rules or do something wrong where the outcome is very beneficial for you. The reason salespeople are even faced with these opportunities to stray across the line is partly due to their loose supervision by others. Often, salespeople are remotely managed and their actions are not witnessed by company executives. Giving sales reps this much implied trust requires that those hired must have a strong sense of ethical values. Over time, a so called “loose cannon” out in a territory can do more than just damage customer relations — it can bring down an entire company.

Another factor influencing ethics is the growing trend towards sales technology, where the buyer seldom meets the salesperson in a face to face situation. For example, the Internet and video conferencing certainly have their cost-saving benefits for salespeople by reducing the need for overnight travel. But, what will be the impact on developing those personal relationships so necessary to maintaining ethical boundaries in business transactions? Do new technologies like these reduce the decision making process to only who has the lowest price? And will sellers respond by crossing the line into the arena of illegal price cutting?

In summary, ethics is at the foundation of the effort to elevate sales as a true profession in its own right. Probably the most singular reason sales has such a poor image centers on the topic of ethics and personal standards of conduct. By reinforcing the concept that the size of the gray area between legal and ethical conduct is narrow, not large, progress will have been made in raising the standards expected of all salespeople.

The field of sales is undergoing dramatic change and evolution thanks to technology and other automation. These advancements will bring about the opportunity to act appropriately as opposed to sliding into abusive practices which will discredit the seller. Out of this picture a new breed of salesperson has emerged — the sales executive. This highly skilled and educated individual will have risen through the ranks of field selling by virtue of his or her commitment to a personal code of conduct. In the new order of selling, there will no longer be any room at the top for those whose conduct is anything else but absolutely ethical.

© 2005 National Assn. of Sales Professionals.

This article is reprinted from the website of the National Association of Sales Professionals as part of their Ethics Study Guide. After reading this overview of sales ethics, NASP members are encouraged to review the group’s series of ethical case studies and consider how the principles of honor and ethics can be applied in “real world” situations — Chivalry Today readers are invited to do the same. This article is reprinted courtesy of the NASP and may not be reproduced in any way without their permission.

Related posts:

1. The Ethical-Legal Dilemmas of Sales
2. The Ethical Pitfalls of Selling
3. “Curb Your Tongue, Knave!”

When we talk of knights in shining armor in the workplace, there are a few vocations that come naturally to mind. You can easily see how soldiers, police officers, firefighters or rescue workers need knightly courage and strength in the discharge of their duties. Even doctors and lawyers occasionally put themselves in harm’s way to fight for the safety and welfare of others. But what about the people whose daily tasks require less adventure and more routine; less “guns and sirens” and more “lunch boxes and time clocks”? For someone with a workaday, run-of-the-mill job, isn’t a code of honor, like the Code of Chivalry, a needless inconvenience?

To answer that question, let’s take a look back into the not-too-distant past at an event that highlights what happens when people with quiet, behind-the-scenes jobs set aside their sense of duty, responsibility and chivalry in favor of convenience.

In 1903 a brand-new playhouse opened in Chicago, Illinois, just in time for Christmas. Its premier production, Mr. Blue Beard Jr., was aimed at the thousands of local families who were enjoying the holiday. Theater management and city officials assured parents that the new facility featured state-of-the-art safety equipment and modern designs, making it “absolutely fireproof.”

Yet on December 30, just five weeks after the Iroquois Theater’s grand opening, fire broke out backstage during the play’s second act. The blaze spread with frightening swiftness, the performers and audience panicked, and within minutes more than 600 people had been killed by smoke, fire and trampling. The Iroquois Theater disaster became (and remains) the second most fatal fire in U.S. history. (The picture, right, was taken just hours after the fire was finally extinguished.)

Months of investigation revealed the causes behind this fiery tragedy in an “absolutely fireproof” building: laziness and corruption. Builders used substandard materials in construction, owners falsified documents, and public officials accepted bribes for “looking the other way” when the theater didn’t meet code. The Eastland Memorial Society reports that the disaster was due to “unbelievable laxity on the part of the theater and city officials charged with public safety.”

Architects, suppliers, carpenters, decorators, bankers, inspectors and others with quiet, everyday jobs may not conclude their days covered in blood and sweat, but they can (and should) still be knights in shining armor. Chivalry is more than strength and bravery; it is also found in those who respect the law, honor their commitments and refuse to compromise their high ethical standards — even when nobody else is watching.

No matter how you earn a living, there is probably someone who depends upon you to be honest, diligent and caring in what you do. Living by the Code of Chivalry in the workplace is often inconvenient, but the story of the Iroquois Theater disaster is a reminder that knightly virtues such as faith, nobility and justice can be matters of life and death. Customers, clients, students, patients, tenants and patrons of all types want to know that there are knights in shining armor working quietly behind the scenes to keep them safe in all aspects of their lives.

To learn more about the tragic Iroquois Theater Disaster, visit the memorial page of the Eastland Memorial Society.

Related posts:

1. Prince Caspian & Chivalry – Podcast 21
2. Tragedy, Leadership and Chivalry
3. Podcast 44: Three Knights Of Shakespeare: Chivalry Takes The Stage

The image of the “shady salesperson” is a stereotype for a reason — many sales reps are willing, even eager to use pressure and misdirection in order to make a sale. In return, many customers and clients are willing to lie to deceitful, manipulative salespeople. As business consultant Art Sobczak points out, this lack of trust and honesty isn’t good for businesses or the customers they serve. In order to make the transition from “shady salesperson” to “knight in shining armor,” you need to be strong, forthright and honorable in order to win the respect of those you do business with. His principles for honest, upstanding sales practices are entirely in tune with the notion of chivalry in business.

Bringing honesty to the sales floor

Have you ever turned a prospect into a liar?

Consider this scenario: A sales rep gets nowhere on a prospecting phone call. Because he thinks he’s doing something productive, or he’s in a rush to minimize the pain and get off the phone, he uses one of these laughable lines:

“Well, keep us in mind, OK?”
“Here’s my number, write it down just in case.”
“How about I give you a call in six months or so?”

When I’m the prospect, I really do feel quite guilty (OK, maybe only slightly … all right, not the least bit of remorse) when I respond with an, “OK, I will keep you in mind,” or when I’m pretending to write down their number. “What was that second number again?”

These phrases make liars out of prospects.

Face it. They have no intention of “keeping us in mind,” let alone writing down our number. These phrases don’t accomplish anything positive, and give no reason for the listener to ever want to consider “keeping you in mind” or calling you.

But you can and should salvage something from these calls. Here’s what you should do and say instead.

Determine Potential Realistically

A money- and time-wasting mistake is hanging on to prospects when there’s no shred of evidence that the person is a prospect. Maybe you’ve experienced it: These “prospects” are recycled through your tickler system. You peruse the notes, get that aching pang in your stomach recalling your last dead-end call. And since there’s nothing leading you to believe they’re any better of a prospect today … you page through to the next prospect, postponing the inevitable.

Or you call and experience either rejection or another put-off.

Another error is letting them go when, indeed, there might be some potential. Find out for sure. Ask, “Ben, under what circumstances would you ever see yourself considering another vendor?”

Notice the wording here. It’s a question that not only asks if they ever would use someone else, but it also asks for the circumstances that would surround it. For example, I’ve heard prospects respond, “Well, I suppose if I ever got into an emergency situation where they weren’t able to deliver, I’d have to look elsewhere.”

Then you have an opportunity to pick up on that remark and continue questioning.

On the other hand, if they say, “Look, you’re wasting your time buddy. Quit calling me!” write them off and move on. And feel good about it, since you obtained a decision.

Promise Proactively

To reiterate, “Keep us in mind,” is a worthless phrase. If you truly want someone to keep you in mind, give them a reason. And tie it into a problem they might experience — a problem you could solve. That might prompt them to not only think of you, but better yet, to call you.

Let’s say you know you can help a company lower their property taxes, but they either don’t see the need at this point, or don’t believe you. You might end the call with, “I still feel we can help you. Here’s something to consider: when you review your property tax itemization: Take a look at the specific valuation and charges for your out-of-state properties. If you feel those taxes are high and question them, keep in mind we are specialists on the tax laws in every state, and know the best way to challenge, and eventually lower the bill. I’ll send you a card with my number on it, so keep it in your tax file, and give me a call then if you feel it would help.”

Don’t make liars out of people. The process is simple:

1. Determine if there ever will be potential.
2. Give them examples of situations to look for, and associate them with the problem you can solve.When they do experience these problems, you’ll have a greater chance of them thinking of you.

© 2005 Art Sobczak

About the author: This article is reprinted from the website of Dave Kahle, the Growth Coach. Dave is a consultant and trainer who helps his clients increase their sales and improve their sales productivity. He speaks from real-world experience, having been the number one salesperson in the country for two companies in two distinct industries. Dave has trained thousands of salespeople to be more successful in the Information Age economy. He’s the author of over 500 articles, a monthly e-zine and four books. His latest is 10 Secrets of Time Management for Salespeople. He has a gift for creating powerful training events that get audiences thinking differently about sales.

Related posts:

1. “Curb Your Tongue, Knave!”
2. The Ethical Pitfalls of Selling
3. Defining the Boundaries of Honor in Sales

Combining chivalry and business is one of the greatest challenges involved in Chivalry Today. Although we admire the gentle and noble qualities of the knightly virtues, we’ve been conditioned to think that doing business requires a sense of drive, determination and achievement that is not compatible with the Code of Chivalry.

Arguably one of the best examples of modern business philosophy is Microsoft — a corporation which was built on state-of-the-art technology, by outside-the-mainstream innovators, and which rose in less than two decades from obscurity to global recognition. Today, every entrepreneur wants his or her business to grow up to be Microsoft.

By the admission of its own executives, Microsoft’s business practices have been fairly ruthless. According to a report in the New York Times, Microsoft pressured its suppliers to cut their bottom lines so drastically that many of them were within a hair’s breadth of operating in the red. And that’s how Microsoft treated its friends.

Microsoft’s competition suffered much worse treatment. Banking on the company’s market clout, Microsoft edged out other software products by threatening to boycott manufacturers who did not include the company’s programs on their computers. It was just this kind of business practice that attracted the scrutiny of the federal government, which, after close examination, decided that Microsoft had become a monopoly, and threatened to dismantle Microsoft on the basis of unfair trade practices.

In short, one of the most successful and recognized businesses in the world had been acting like a bully; pressuring its allies and suffocating its competitors.

Facing a forced restructuring, Microsoft struck a deal with prosecutors to avoid government intervention. Since then, the company’s executives have begun to reevaluate their priorities. According to news reports, there is a new factor which has been added to the performance evaluations of Microsoft employees: respect. Everyone from the president of the company to the people who answer questions on the technical support hotlines is now being graded, not just on their programming expertise or marketing savvy, but on the level of respect they demonstrate for suppliers, customers and fellow employees.

The federal anti-trust lawsuit was the wake-up call to Microsoft, reminding them that profit and chivalry are not mutually exclusive.

Of course this doesn’t mean Microsoft is going to surrender its position as an industry leader anytime soon. As analyst Steve Bodow observed on NPR’s Marketplace, “Microsoft hasn’t become a kitten. They’re just becoming a well-behaved lion.”

When discussing chivalry in business, it is worth remembering that the Code of Chivalry was created as a conduct manual for professional warriors. Chivalry mandated that these warriors guard their allies’ flanks, work within the chain of command, protect their injured friends, and even allow their adversaries to rise with dignity after they had been defeated. Chivalry’s only restriction on the spirit of competition was that a knight refrain from taking unfair advantage of an opponent.

Win by using your own strengths, not by exploiting others’ weaknesses, and in victory or defeat, always treat others with respect. Chivalry Today turns out to be a sound business philosophy, even for one of the most recognized corporate giants of the 21st century.

Related posts:

1. Business and Chivalry
2. Small Business Chivalry
3. Chivalry Prevents Business Meltdowns

Today, chivalry is routinely equated with demure attitudes and subservient actions. But the knightly warriors of medieval Europe who created the Code of Chivalry were neither demure nor subservient — yet many of them were very chivalrous. In the 21st century we assume that a person (an athlete, an executive, a politician or a student) must choose between honorable behavior and competitive drive. Can the ideals of the Code of Chivalry and the deliberate pursuit of “power” exist in concert? Ms. Chennault, herself a successful entrepreneur, provides a fascinating look at that question.

Does Ambition Negate the Knightly Ideal?

Chivalry and power — must you give up one to have the other? Must the middle manager set aside honor when she gets the big promotion? Must the idealistic college athlete suppress his sense of fair play when he becomes a pro quarterback? Does the hometown politician have to abandon personal integrity when she is elected to a seat in the state senate?

Many people raise an eyebrow at the thought of a “knight in shining armor” being ambitious or deliberately seeking personal power. Perhaps that’s why we’re running into so many ethical problems in our world: There are too many people who think that being chivalrous means being a pushover.

Generally, I sum up “chivalry” as having great power, but behaving as if you don’t. You may have the physical ability or political authority to be able to take something you want by force, but instead you buy it, ask for it or do without it. You may have the power or prestige to be arrogant and conceited, but instead you speak mildly and courteously. The list goes on.

The part of chivalry that is too often overlooked is the cause of so many ethical dilemmas: the acquisition of power. Someone who seeks to be chivalrous must also seek to be powerful, because chivalry is the act of voluntarily withholding the wrongful, selfish or destructive application of that power. A weakling can be kind and courteous, but a weakling cannot be chivalrous.

You note here that this sort of “strength” is not necessarily physical strength. Words, willpower, moral authority and superior education can all represent strength in a person who is not physically strong. In the story of True Grit, the fastidious lawyer J. Noble Daggett can be chivalrous by protecting the farmers against the railroad, even though the land-grabbing railroad baron could pay him more for his services. Such an act is truly a chivalrous use of power — and in that respect, a physically diminutive individual is the equal in chivalry to the mighty and valiant Rooster Cogburn.

Chivalry is based, in some manner, on strength, on power. Therefore since the demonstration of the attributes of chivalry is predicated on the existence of power, the attempt to gain power is a legitimate aspect of chivalry. The athlete-in-training, the politician on the campaign trail, the student working in the lab — all are striving toward a sort of power, and all will have the opportunity to put that power to use in a chivalrous way.

Most often, when we remark on a lack of chivalry in the people around us, we refer to someone who has power, but abuses it. A powerful person who is arrogant and takes whatever he or she wants is the visible antithesis of the chivalric ideal. That person is the embodiment of the bully — the opposite of a knight in shining armor.

But, looking around us, much more common is the individual who gives lip-service to the ideals of chivalry, but who does not bestir him- or herself to gain any level of accomplishment from which to either demonstrate the knightly virtues, or fail the test and be cast into the ranks of opportunism. The clerk in a dead-end job who plans to go back to school “someday,” the once-talented high-school athlete who spends Sunday afternoons on the couch and complains about the working mom who coaches his daughter’s softball team, the discontented homeowner whose response to every community problem is, “Someone ought to pass a law … ” Nothing ventured, nothing lost.

A scrawny, myopic nerd who spends his free time programming shareware to defeat the latest virus is acting within the best tradition of chivalry. A beautiful woman who has the ability to drip acid sarcasm from her tongue, yet who consoles a co-worker whose love life has just collapsed, who makes him laugh and gives him confidence to go on, is a knight in shining armor. A business owner who puts part of his profits to use for charitable enterprises rather than upgrading his office equipment as a hollow write-off is as much of a chivalrous hero as the paladins of Charlemagne.

The important factor here is that all of these examples had to make the deliberate choice to acquire and maintain power of some kind. The programmer wasn’t born knowing how to program. Even as an athlete must run and lift weights, a soldier must train with his weapons and a ruler must campaign for office, so must the computer programmer spend nights studying code and writing obscure subroutines in order to create the anti-virus program that saves thousands of people’s Excel spreadsheets, business records and love letters.

Each of these people has sought an altitude of power that allows them this choice: Shall I behave chivalrously, or shall I look out only for my own self-interest? Ambition, competition and desire are not the bane of the Code of Chivalry. The quality of chivalry is defined by how we seek power, and by what we do with it once it’s in our grasp.

© 2004 Jan Chennault

About the Author: Jan Chennault is vice-president of Schuyler House Lab Information Systems, a manufacturer of life-saving software for the health-care industry. She has a BA in Biology, a BS in Medical Technology, ASCP and California Registries, and 17 years of experience as a Medical Technologist.

Related posts:

1. The Chivalry Debate: Part 2
2. Chivalry and the Warrior Lifestyle
3. Passing Chivalry

Can someone in an adversarial, aggressive profession conduct themselves with chivalry and honor — and be successful? This author, who is also a practicing attorney, reminds us that there are pitfalls to approaching such a job with a win-at-all-costs attitude. It diminishes professionalism and self-respect, and in the long run, it may not even be in the client’s best interest. Attorneys are fighters, but they are also champions. Read this piece, then read Prof. Shannon French’s article Why Do Warriors Need A Code? — the similarity between these two articles is a testimony to the enduring value of Chivalry Today.

The Advocacy System and the Code of Chivalry

The legal profession is giving much current lip service to the importance of “civility.” Rambo-style litigators are being branded and disparaged by the legal profession. Yet the truth is that most clients don’t give a damn about their council’s interpersonal behavior. In fact, most want war. They want a mean, junkyard dog to carry their cause. The client wants an attorney to reflect his own belligerent attitude toward the enemy. In short, clients want a warrior to do battle for them against their adversaries.

Acrimony is an expected part of the rules of engagement. The public may simply not stand for an elevated standard of civility. The client may ultimately reject the congenial lawyer and replace a pussycat with a polecat. This is especially true where the client benefits from unsavory professional practices.

Are the concepts of being a warrior and acting with civility mutually inconsistent? Most warrior classes historically have had a recognized code of conduct. This may range from an overly courteous medieval Code of Chivalry to a brutal Code of Bushido. No matter — some recognized standards of behavior are common to virtually all warrior castes.

In some states, like Michigan, as a part of the oath of office, an attorney is required to swear under oath that they will refrain and abstain from all “offensive personality.” In New York, a state not noted for its easy-going population, they have attempted to elevate the standards by adopting a Unified Court System. Here are some of its provisions:

• Lawyers should conduct themselves with dignity and refrain from engaging in sets of rudeness and disrespect.
• When consistent with their client’s interest, lawyers should cooperate with opposing counsel in an effort to avoid litigation and resolve litigation that has already commenced.
• The timing of service of papers should not be designed to cause disadvantage to the party receiving the papers.
• A lawyer should adhere to express promises and agreements with other counsel.
• Lawyers should not engage in conduct intended primarily to harass or humiliate witnesses.

So, at last in such states, the attorney whose personal conduct is obnoxious and is closer to the Bushido end of the behavior spectrum is at risk of losing the right to remain a member of the warrior class of litigators. Rudeness, incivility, crankiness or idiosyncratic behavior at some point on the conduct continuum can cross the threshold into unprofessional behavior.

Going Blind One Eye At A Time

Many attorneys operate just inside the ragged edge of the perceived behavior envelope. Weighing their behavior and deciding when sanctions or expulsion from the professional warrior class is appropriate is a difficult task. It is principally the responsibility of the various states’ professional licensing entities to decide where that threshold lies and when it is crossed. Their determinations should properly be a true reflection of the group’s norms and standards, and should neither be too broad or narrow.

Yet a lawyer’s job is to be contentious. An attorney is expected to act as a warrior, doing battle for the client because by definition, there is a disagreement. That makes them inherently disagreeable. But when assertiveness is taken too far, as is true with a military warrior’s atrocities, the professional whose personal behavior exceeds the perceived bounds of professional decency is out of control and needs to be sanctioned.

One of the principal dangers of an unrestricted lack of a civility and all-out war is that it will induce retaliatory behavior or matching conduct that reflects the conduct received. There is a tendency when a grenade is thrown over the fence to simply toss one back in kind: An-eye-for-an-eye is considered by many to be acceptable behavior. Thus, the conduct of one “bad apple” can taint the barrel by its infectious affect on others as a whole. The tenor of conduct tends to degenerate to its lowest common denominator.

In addition, overly gratuitous or obnoxious behavior can run up costs to the client and produce delay because it invites reflective relation. This can work against the interests of the client. Having to deal with thrown grenades of misconduct takes time, and that means money. Just as in war, dirty tricks require containment and set the standard for response.

By maintaining some minimal code of legal chivalry and professional conduct, focus can be maintained on key issues. Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz» > maintained that war should be directed to advance the purposes of the contest and achieve the objective. No one fights a war gratuitously and merely for the sake of doing so.

Likewise, gratuitous rudeness is a cultural (or lack thereof) phenomenon. It has nothing to do with objectives, overall goals or strategy. At best, it could be a perceived means to the desired end. The problem is that it can work at cross-purpose to the very end desired. It can provide a powerful incentive to the other side that can motivate resistance and retaliation.

The Eastern District of Michigan has even gone to the extreme step of establishing a “civility plan,” with an Advisory Group to propose a plan and guidelines. The desired effect was to reduce expense and delay in civil cases. The means to their desired end is to “foster congeniality.” They apparently feel that the client’s objective can be achieved without the adversaries having to wear a “war face” and operate in an atmosphere of open hostility.

The Warrior’s Reflection

A major collateral benefit hoped for by improving civility between lawyers is to improve the general image of attorneys. By operating at a higher degree of professionalism, and defocusing on the sleazy, junkyard dog image (such as portrayed by Danny Devito in The Rainmaker) some members of the bar hope that an increase in goodwill and a more positive image will result in the eyes of the public.

However, it’s difficult to breed out inherent personality traits in most individuals, and the very type of individual that is attracted to the rancor and discord of litigation brings that same attitude with them into the profession. Nothing short of a full frontal lobotomy, neutering or outright disbarment will change many or most of these “hard core” types. However, if accepted standards are violated as the result of an obnoxious personality that operates outside the envelope of acceptable behavior, a proper personality or attitude may be a prerequisite to remain admitted to the practice.

The bottom line is that a professional does not have to be a jerk to be a success. Decency can be effective, too. The concepts of ethics, civility, professionalism and advocacy are not mutually exclusive. One can still be a tough and fair individual and still be a respected member of the “warrior” class of litigators and attorneys. The warriors can treat fellow members of their class with respect, dignity and civility and still advance the cause of their patrons and clients.

© 2004 John Scott Hoff

About the author: John Scott Hoff is a trial attorney and partner in the Chicago law firm of Hoff & Garley, P.C. He is a 1975 graduate of Southwestern School of Law. Mr. Hoff has been a member of the Nebraska State Bar Association since 1983. This article has been digested by permission from “Attorneys as Warriors,” which appeared in the Dec. 1998 edition of The Nebraska Lawyer. You can also download a pdf file of the full, original text.

Related posts:

1. Chivalry Goes To The Dogs
2. Chivalry and the Warrior Lifestyle
3. Two Young Knights

The San Diego chapter of the Better Business Bureau recently invited county high school students to submit essays on the importance of ethical business practices as part of the BBB’s Torch Award program» . Chivalry Today is honored to be able to share the winning essay with our readers as a reminder that there are still knights in shining armor at all levels of American business.

American business is very much like a nuclear reactor: It can generate positive output — products, wealth, jobs, prosperity — that are much greater in proportion than its initial input and capital. But it is also possible for things to go wrong, and the radiation from an ethical “meltdown” is just as widespread and devastating as that from a fission reaction. It can spread rapidly, affect the perception of investors and citizens about entire industries, lead to widespread unemployment, and ultimately bring about recession, depression and social upheaval on a grand scale. Our American market economy is dependent on several factors, but none is as important as honesty. Government regulation is, at times, necessary, but on the whole it is the honest dealings of the people at the top of companies that guarantees that the markets work. What happens when large companies go awry and dispense with honesty and integrity in the boardroom?

Take California for example. The amount of damage that has been inflicted upon California over the past several years is a direct result of unethical behavior by the energy companies. Enron was one of the most glaring culprits. Their top officials misstated earnings and lied about profits to their shareholders.

The effect has been as devastating as a radioactive cloud settling over the state. Californians are paying more for electricity and gas than ever before; we suffered months of “rolling blackouts” that hurt everyone’s ability to plan their daily lives or businesses, drove many small merchants into bankruptcy and led to higher unemployment. Ultimately, the governor was recalled because of mounting deficits and what some perceived to be his mishandling of the “energy crisis.” Investors are wary of the energy industry, companies are leaving the state and citizens want heads on sticks. Distrust, recession and social chaos are in direct correlation with the lack of real marketplace ethics.

What brought this about? Lying and scheming in the boardroom. American capitalism demands honesty. Business leaders at all levels and in all industries must give an accurate, honest accounts of their fiscal health and activity. Anything less leads to distrust in and the fear of the markets that we all depend on, and gives revolutionaries, always searching for the chink the armor of free-market democracies, their opportunity.

© 2003-2004 Kayleigh Shaw

Reprinted by permission from the San Diego Better Business Bureau website

Related posts:

1. Small Business Chivalry
2. Business and Chivalry
3. Faith, Money and Chivalry

Several months ago I was talking to the president of a publishing firm about modern ethics and the Code of Chivalry. He was intrigued, but when we got to the subject of knights in shining armor in the world of business, I could see his interest waning quickly. After a few moments, he said, “Chivalry is a great way to promote personal values, but those things really don’t apply to business.”

It wasn’t the first time I’ve encountered such attitudes among high-powered executives and financial gurus. A lot of people in the corporate world believe that if you want to succeed, you must check your morals at the front desk. Or, at least, that was true until recently.

Then, a paradigm shift rocked the corporate world. Over the course of two weeks in July the major stock indices plummeted, not because of terrorist attacks, woeful economic forecasts, massive layoffs or staggering inflation, but due to one factor: lack of faith. A string of scandals in companies which were once the bedrock of American enterprise revealed greed and corruption on the part of a few top executives, and suddenly the economic outlook was grim. On the week the Dow Jones average dropped nearly 300 points, NBC News conducted a poll which showed that 59 percent of investors had “no confidence whatsoever” in the stock market.

The tailspinning economy was a reminder that the knightly virtues play a crucial role in the world of business. Faith — which encompasses integrity, trust, fidelity and honesty — is not an attribute which can be embraced selectively. Employees must have faith in their managers and executives. Investors must have faith in the institutions which manage their money. Customers must have faith in the products and services they purchase. In an atmosphere of faithlessness, success and prosperity give way to suspicion and self-preservation.

To combat this lack of faith, the government has stepped in to legislate ethical behavior in corporate boardrooms and accounting firms. The economy seems to be on the upswing, but this recovery is clearly chilly and tentative. As other corporations work to put a positive spin on their past accounting “irregularities,” analysts keep a close eye open for harbingers of further economic turbulence. Faith based on rules or regulations is a weak, pale version of that which is based on reputation and honor.

Faith is necessary in every aspect of life — marriage, friendship, career and even personal attitude. A betrayal of faith is an uncomfortable and painful thing to deal with, and restoring faith can take a long time. This is why James Baldwin once observed, “The moment we break faith with one another, the sea engulfs us and the light goes out.” Faith, along with all the knightly virtues, must be a welcome partner in any healthy, growing business. And a business led by a knight in shining armor guided by the Code of Chivalry cannot help but succeed.

Related posts:

1. Bullies, Business and Chivalry
2. Business and Chivalry
3. Chivalry Goes To The Dogs

Look at that plaque on the desk where you spend eight hours (or more) of your day. It may be engraved with an impressive title like “vice president” or “sales associate” or “executive financial officer.” Or, perhaps your corporate identity exists at the top of a time card — “cashier” or “assembly” or “maintenance.” In any case, no matter how extravagant or simple your occupational description is, imagine how things might change if you had a different career designation.

What if your title was: “Knight in Shining Armor”?

The world of business is, by nature, competitive, fast-paced, chaotic and intense — an environment not unlike that of the Middle Ages during the days of knights in shining armor. A medieval knight was expected to charge into battle without flinching at the possibility of suffering a few dents in the fray, but was also expected to behave in a gracious and considerate manner all the while.

In an attempt to reconcile these two seemingly incongruous expectations, the knights of the Middle Ages created the code of chivalry — a set of standards which guided them on a path of ethical and admirable conduct, even in the heat of battle. Today’s businesspeople can benefit from examining the code of chivalry as a guide for leadership and professional ethics in the workplace — in fact, you may find those hard-working knights in shining armor of the Middle Ages were a lot like professionals in the competitive workplace environment of the twenty-first century.

Let’s consider how the seven knightly virtues of the code of chivalry can be put to use on the job today.

Courage

Knights in shining armor needed courage to compete in the rough-and-tumble environment of a melee. Business today requires courage to take calculated risks in order to help an enterprise succeed and expand. But there are other kinds of courage that enhance not just quick profits, but long-term corporate health: the courage to take responsibility for mistakes and oversights, the courage to accept criticism (from clients, co-workers and employees) objectively and graciously, and the courage to decline opportunities for profit gained by harming others. Courage in business is much more than just risk-taking.

Justice

Medieval knights upheld the king’s law not just by brute force, but by conducting themselves with the highest degree of justice. Today, everyone within a healthy company should know they are subject to fair and reasonable rules. What messages are sent (to both customers and business associates) when a high-level executive gets a sizable bonus after layoffs have been announced? Does anyone benefit when workers are encouraged to ignore quality standards to meet a high-pressure deadline?

Mercy

After a jousting match, the winning knight saluted his fallen opponent and complimented him on his skill. Winning a battle for a promotion or a big contract in the business world is certainly a cause for celebration, but — like a knight in shining armor — when the battle’s done, you should allow your defeated opponent to rise with dignity rather than delivering a death-blow. When the situation is reversed (as it surely will be someday) you will reap the benefits of showing a merciful attitude to worthy competitors.

Generosity

A medieval knight was expected to share his fortune, in good times as well as in lean. Businesses which, to the best of their ability, provide a little “extra value” to their customers and clients engender tremendous loyalty in the market; workers who know their employer treats them generously are far more inclined to return that favor if the company ever finds itself struggling.

Faith

A knight’s “word of honor” was expected to be a binding promise. Do your colleagues, employees and customers feel the same way about you? Do they put their trust in your company to always look out for their best interests? Are you known for always coming through on commitments and meeting deadlines? A reputation for faithfulness creates a productive business environment, and allows everyone in the workplace to turn their full energy toward business, rather than “checking up” on dubious claims and guarantees.

Nobility

A knight in shining armor didn’t earn that title by acting chivalrously only in the presence of the king. Having a noble demeanor means acting with chivalry and ethics, even when you know nobody else is watching. If an auditor were to walk into your office today, how would that change the way you’re doing business? (Good or bad, the chances are your customers and employees know the answer to that question just as well as you do.)

Hope

A knight with a cheerful attitude was a beacon of hope amid the uncertainty and despair of the Middle Ages. Today, having a positive, optimistic outlook in the workplace benefits customers and colleagues alike, and it also serves as a reminder that there is intellectual stimulation and personal reward to be found in any job, position or career.

No matter what your title, you should carry the code of chivalry into the workplace every morning. There is no office, department, retail outlet or production facility that can’t be improved by understanding and adopting the virtues of chivalry as a way of doing business. In an age where workers, managers and executives alike are tempted to indulge in questionable ethical practices, one of the most effective means of success is to give yourself a new job description: “Knight in Shining Armor.”

Related posts:

1. The Knight Awards
2. Chivalry Prevents Business Meltdowns
3. A Humble Knight