Take for example; truth telling. According to the standard of least acceptable conduct; the law, you only have to tell the truth after having uncrossed your fingers behind your back.
At all other times, particularly if you are powerful, your fingers are tightly crossed behind your back and you have entirely justified deliberate deception.
In contrast, if you are accountable to a higher standard of conduct, like the one we have asked our children to embrace, then fingers don’t get crossed, ever.
The trustworthiness we expect from our children is diametrically opposite to any deception that can be justified by crossing your fingers behind your back. If we shake hands with our other hand behind our backs, our children will learn to do the same.
Every child needs to know what the line is. Every child needs to know that anyone who crosses that line must hold themselves accountable, even the role model. Otherwise the child is taught that it is acceptable, after having crossed the line, to then compound that misconduct by trying to escape the consequences.
It is not about being perfect. It is about being willing to accept the consequences of being imperfect.
It is about drawing a line. On one side of that line, a list of acceptable imperfections; and on the other, a list of unacceptable imperfections. It is about accepting the consequences of crossing the line.
If that can be done while a child is watching, then a child can be taught what it looks like to accept the consequences of misconduct.
Every generation expects the next generation to be the first to hold itself accountable to a higher standard of conduct. Invariably the next generation will hold itself accountable only to the standard modeled before them. Children, by in large, will not hold themselves accountable to a higher standard of conduct than the one modeled by their mentor.
We tell our children about George Washington and the cherry tree. We tell the story to illustrate our expectation that they will grow up holding themselves accountable to a higher standard of conduct.
If asked, we will say that we are models of a higher standard. We are leading by our example. We are expecting no more from those we lead, than we expect from ourselves.
Yet we teach them by our example, that the accouterments of power include exception from accountability; absolutely.
If the next generation is to grow up to embrace honor and courage and character; someone has to show them what it looks like.
If we want the next generation to hold it self honestly accountable to a meaningful standard of conduct; someone has to show them what it looks like.
There is only one way to model honest accountability, and that is to hold yourself honestly accountable; willingly enter a situation where you will be held honestly accountable for your misconduct; even against your will.
Assume that you say that you support speed limits. Imagine that the ballot question before you asks; will you support installing what ever measures are necessary to insure inescapable accountability to an unequivocal standard with respect to speeding?
In other words; will you hold yourself honestly accountable to a meaningful standard of conduct?
If you vote yes, you have walked your talk. The child who watches you will learn that principles are worthy of sacrifice.
It is not about being perfect. It is about being accountable.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Honest accountability to an ethical standard of conduct – What difference does it make?
Posted by ched macquigg at 8:54 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment