Reputation is something we are all concerned about, and not least in management. Indeed, a lot of management literature reflects this almost universal desire to be seen as reputable, as the shelves of any bookshop will show. This literature is usually driven by the simple policy that having a good reputation is good for our business lives; and it quotes from sources as wide ranging as Ronald Reagan, Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw, Churchill, Lincoln, and hundreds of other famous names to give its advice credibility. I would imagine Oscar Wilde would have a little smile on his face if he saw the number of times he is quoted in such literature. Nevertheless, our reputation remains a sticky issue for many of us, as business is a pragmatic affair, and matters are not always very clear. Self-interest is always present. Coupled with this is that we rarely perceive events and issues the same way as others do. Not only do we have our legitimate self-interests to protect, but also our perception of what is being said or done does not always coincide with that of others. So, you may ask, how are we to conduct ourselves where meaning and perception are often ambiguous, in a market place where people are ambitious and often aggressive? How can we build and maintain a good reputation in such an environment? One way is to observe the Golden Rule as a minimum standard for our behaviour.
The Golden Rule as a minimum standard
We find references to the Golden Rule, or the Law of Reciprocity, as some people term it, in early Buddhism. Gautam [560-480 BC], known to us as the founder of Buddhism, tells us, “One should seek for others the happiness one desires for oneself”. This was the ‘middle way’ which Gautam preached as a guide for human behaviour. We also find other references in Buddhism such as “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful” [Udana-Varga 5,1]. Confucius [551-479 BC] likewise formulated a law of human relationships similar to the Buddhist idea of walking the middle way and avoiding excesses. He called it the Golden Mean and defined it in slightly negative language (hence the name Silver Rule), “What I do not wish men to do to me I also wish not to do to them”. Confucius’ principal purpose was to persuade all people to cooperate in securing the general good. He is reported elsewhere as saying, “Do not unto others what you would not they should do unto you. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in family or in the state”.[Analects 12.2]. Taoism states “Regard your neighbour’s gain as your gain, and your neighbour’s loss as your loss” [Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien]. Hinduism, which developed and thrived on the Indian subcontinent, had this universal rule built into its beliefs and ways, “This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others what you would not have them do unto you” [Mahabharata 5,1517].
Turning to Western culture, we find some similar observations. Plato [427-348 BC] in his “Republic”, advises us, “… do to others as I would that they should do to me”. Isocrates [436-338 BC], the rhetorician, who did not always see eye-to-eye with the great philosopher, coincided with Plato on the question of the Golden Rule. He lectured his students “Do not do to others that you would be angry if you suffered it from others”. Plato’s student, Aristotle, [384-322 BC] summed it up this way when he was asked by his students about how to behave “Exactly as we would wish our friends to behave to us”. This was a law of social reciprocity.
In ancient Rome we find a similar appeal to social reciprocity. Seneca, the stoic [3-65 AD], states the principle several times. Lucillius puts it the following way, “This is then, the sum and substance of my advice: treat your inferior as you would be treated by your superiors”.
But what about the Judaic-Christian traditions? Were the same observations about human relationships made here? In Leviticus, one of the early books of the Bible, which was probably put together in about the 7th Century BC, we find a clear command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. Here we find a change from the Eastern interpretation, the introduction of the word ‘love’. It is presupposed that we have regard and a deal of self-love, as we are creatures of God, and that this regard and love should be reciprocated to others. Later we find other references. Tobit instructs his son Tobias, for example, “What is displeasing to thyself, do not unto others”. Later we find Rabbi Hillel, the great doctor of Hebrew law, who roughly lived at the time of Jesus, telling us, “Whatever thou wouldest that men should not do to thee, do not do that to them”. Hillel continued, “This is the whole law; the rest is mere commentary”. [Talmud, Shabbat 3id]. This learned Rabbi obviously recognised the importance of internal control over our behaviour and social relations.
In the writings on the life and teachings of Jesus we find this law mentioned several times. In the Gospel of Matthew we find, “Treat others as you want to be treated” and “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets” [Matthew 7:1]. We find other references such as, “As ye would that men should do unto you, do ye also to them likewise”. We also find in Jesus’ message the amalgamation or the coming together of the Golden Rule with Jesus’ message of love, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. This rule for many people is important became it helps them to be consistent, or at least try to be consistent, irrespective of the circumstances.
The universality of the Golden Rule is further demonstrated when we look at a number of other traditions. In the Islamic tradition, for example, we find the rule written in the following way: “No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself” [Sunnah]. In Jainism we have the rule written this way, “A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated” [Sutrakritanga 1.11.33]. In the Sikh tradition, we find the following “As thou deemest thyself, so deem others”. There is a Nigerian Yoruba proverb that states the rule slightly differently, “One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts”.
The rule is also found in many other major religions and cultures not mentioned here because of space. And in more recent thinking, we find the rule appearing in the writings of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. Mills states, “To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself …”. Kant put it differently when he wrote “Act as if the maxim of thy actions were to become by your will a universal law”.
Some objections to the rule
It can be argued that the Golden Rule as a guide for our behaviour leaves us vulnerable to others who may not see its value as we do. Many may argue that those who practice the Rule are often pushed aside by their more assertive colleagues. They see the Rule as a recipe for weakness.
In answer to these genuine objections, it should be pointed out that the rule applies to the doer primarily. It is about being fair. If someone is about to cause you injury of some kind, it is our duty to defend ourselves. We have to be fair to ourselves as well as to others. If someone is undermining your position, attacking your credibility or manoeuvring against your interests, justice demands that we are under an obligation to defend ourselves. The rule is not a recipe for weakness.
Another objection we often hear is that the Golden Rule disregards the moral autonomy of others. Look at the following example put forward by Paul Treanor, who asks an interesting question, “Should Bill Gates give his money to the starving Ethiopians?” Treanor goes on to tell us that Gates should try to think himself into the position of a starving Ethiopian, and ask (himself) whether he would want money or food in those circumstances. However, could this be interpreted as Bill Gates forcing his views on others?[1]
The answer here, in my opinion, is simply that Bill Gates could easily come to the conclusion that it was unfair that he has so much, and the Ethiopians so little. He might feel that this difference is unfair and as a result of his natural sympathy he might make some money available.
What about boardroom greed?
Another limitation is that, as self-interest is a dominant force in our lives, and if our reputations are not tarnished in its pursuit, we can safely ignore the rule. We have only to look at the boardroom pay bonanza that still continues to go on despite public criticism in Great Britain. In the year 2004, for example, directors’ pay in the United Kingdom climbed 12.8%, which is three times faster than the average earnings. According to the Guardian’s annual pay survey, this was somewhat down on the previous year, when the pay rise was as high as 23%. Julia Finch writes that the average earnings in the UK, according to this Guardian survey for 2003, were 4.7%, or 3.6%, when city bonuses are stripped out of the national figures. What a difference!! Finch goes on to tell us that the average pay in the UK is now about £24,000 – one 70th that of the average chief executive. So, we may ask, where does the Golden Rule operate here?
People object to these boardroom practices, but usually serious reputation damage only occurs when there is widespread publicity. Why should someone with a low salary be concerned about the Golden rule in such an environment?
The Rule of Reciprocity
Another opinion of the Golden Rule could be that it is nothing more than the law of reciprocity (give and take) which most marketing people are only too well aware of. Robert Cialdini, an American writer and marketing academic, offers six simple laws of behaviour that can be useful in interpersonal persuasion. These are Reciprocation, Scarcity, Authority, Commitment, Liking, and Consensus. Much of his research on interpersonal persuasion directly concerns practical situations from which he was able to form his generalisations. An example of reciprocity could be simply “If you buy lunch for me today, I’ll buy it for you next week.” i.e. If you do me a favour, I’ll return the deed in the future. Yes, we feel an obligation to give back what others have given to us. Giving is like building up a credit, because when we need something we can call on the act (of giving). When we go into a place, our attitude should be, “Who can I help here?” It should never be “Who can help me here?” Think of it; as a fair exchange. Don’t throw away opportunities of reciprocation. Many people, Caldini tells us, throw away opportunities for reciprocation by saying something like “Oh, that’s o.k., it’s only part of the job”, or “Don’t think about it”. Caldini advises us to say something like, “Sure, thank you, I know if the situation was reversed, you would do the same for me”. Is this another form of the golden rule?
A Signpost is not the Law
The application of the Golden Rule depends on two issues: knowledge of the situation and the ability to imagine the consequences. In order to apply the rule, we must understand the situation, and be able to imagine its consequences. Without these elements, it is difficult to apply the rule in a rational way. It is, at the end of the day, a minimalist approach to behaviour that simply tells us that we should treat other people fairly. It is a minimum standard signpost; it is not a law that fits all situations neatly, as we have seen earlier.
This minimalist rule gains in credibility because, as we have seen, we have multiple sources to show how it has developed in almost every culture. These sources give the rule some credibility as a signpost for our behaviour. Whether writers such as Paul Treanor like it or not, its application will give us a reputation for fairness. Irrespective of whether we are dealing with minimalist or maximalist, the prerequisite remains the same. We must be informed and knowledgeable on the issue, and be in a position to imagine the other party’s point of view.
What is the maximalist approach?
However, if the golden rule is a minimalist argument (to deal fairly and honestly with others) there is also a maximalist argument which, according to Bob Passantino, is to deal generously, and better than expected, with others. Bob Passantino gives us an interesting example of how the maximalist rule could work, “…if someone states an argument poorly, rather than merely pointing out the logical mistakes he has made, the Principle of Charity demands that his opponent correct the flaws in the argument (if they can be corrected), and then respond to the best form of the argument rather than his opponent’s poor form of argument”.
The ‘Golden Rule’ as applied
Probably one of the most significant public applications of the Rule over the last fifty years was in John F. Kennedy’s anti-segregation speech in 1963 at the University of Alabama. Kennedy, according to the authors James Swindal and Earl Surgin, asked the whites, “to consider what it would be like to be treated as a second class citizen because of skin colour. He then asked them to imagine themselves being black – and being told that they could not vote, or go to the best public schools, or eat at most public restaurants. He asked whether they would be content to being treated that way in such circumstances”. Then the President put it to his audience at the University of Alabama, “the heart of the question is… whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated”.
We can find support for this rule in practically every age and in most civilisations. It is a common law of behaviour, which has been spoken about by many, which can help us to be as consistent as we possibly can in our interpersonal relationships and in our communications in general. However, to apply the rule successfully, we should be somewhat knowledgeable of the facts of the situation, and have some imagination, in order to visualise the consequences of our possible comments and actions on the lives of others. Perhaps the best way to do this is to imagine ourselves in the other person’s place.
A problem to solve
Finally, I would like to leave you with a problem which the authors Spurgin and Swindal discuss in their book. Imagine you were brought up in a society that practised a smooth brand of apartheid. This form of comfortable apartheid was so built in that many people found it normal. If we are not used to applying the Rule in general, although we have the passive knowledge and imagination for role reversal in such circumstances it would be difficult to suddenly turn it on. We would be unable to visualise ourselves and our families being treated in that manner. Because the apartheid was so smoothly ingrained, such a role reversal exercise would not come easily. How can we deal with such a problem within our own societies today, if we don’t have the habit of role reversal in our normal daily social and business lives?
Conclusion
Because the Golden Rule as a minimalist standard has emerged in almost every civilised society, it can be categorised as universal, and a useful guidepost for our behaviours, attitudes, opinions and beliefs right across cultural boundaries. It is almost of if it were part of the human condition or, as Stephen Covey would phrase it, part of the human consciousness. Although some people may ignore it as a rule of thumb to help them build and maintain their reputations, this doesn’t diminish its universal credibility. Boardrooms of the City of London may still be motivated by the greed of the 90s with their huge pay rises, but the Golden Rule will survive, irrespective of whether they apply it or not. It continues to point towards a fairer society, and no matter how idealistic this may seem, it stands as a valuable signpost for our daily behaviour and our relationships with others. It is our best building block to establish a reputation of fairness and of maintaining this reputation.
References:
Covey, Stephen R. Covey, “Seven Habits of Effective People”, Simon & Schuster, 1989
Surgin, Earl & Swindal, James. “History of Ethics”, Routledge, 2000
Finch, Julia. “Boardroom pay bonanza goes on”, published in ‘The Guardian’, Friday August 27, 2004.
Treanor, Paul, http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/golden.rule.html
Passantino, Bob, htt:/answers.org/apologetics/goldenapol.html
[1] Please keep in mind that this merely an example. Bill Gates has contributed an extraordinary amount of money for the public good