Timothy McVeigh parked in front of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, got out of the rental truck he was driving and walked away–leaving a scene he knew would be devastating in a matter of a few minutes when the explosives packed in the truck detonated.
The Oklahoma City Bombing, as that crime will always be known, took the lives of 169 adults and children, permanently injured dozens of others and scarred the lives of thousands. Timothy McVeigh was arrested, tried, found guilty and executed. Terry Nichols, who helped plan the crime, is serving a life sentence in a federal prison.
I was the United States Marshal for Colorado during the trials in the cases of US v McVeigh and US v Nichols and that trial process is the most memorable activity of my law enforcement career for many reasons. Some of those can be the subjects of future posts. In this one, I want to share a perspective that was reinforced for me repeatedly: The traits we admire in a moral and ethical person–confidence, determination, bravery, willingness to take a stand for what is right–all become negative, vicious and despicable when they come from an arrogant, hateful heart and mind.
I was reminded of Tim McVeigh as I was reading poetry this week and saw the classic Invictus, by William Ernest Henley, a 19th century British poet. The title is Latin for Unconquered, and the poem is often read at funerals–particularly for those who led a life of strong resolution.
Timothy McVeigh quoted Invictus to me on several occasions and, I understand, he quoted parts of it before his execution. He thought the concept fit him: He did what he believed was right and just, and he was willing to pay the price if he was caught. Some people who supported him then and now think of him as a hero. I think of him as a self-centered, arrogant young man who didn’t care how many other people paid the price with him. He could have been much more, because he was intelligent, witty and personable in many of his conversations. But, he threw his future away along with the futures of others, to feed his ego–not his ethics.
When I talk with someone who prides himself on his strength of character, I consider the results of his actions and the positive effect he has on others. If he has consistently displayed morality and ethics combined with caring and compassion, I can admire him and will be influenced by him. If all he does is hate, complain, judge, argue, criticize and view him and his few friends as better than everyone else, I can’t find a reason to admire him–and I won’t listen to him. Sadly, some of those people, like a Tim McVeigh, could be a tremendously positive force in the lives of others. But, they choose to be filled with venom. Wise people avoid them to avoid being poisoned by the contact.
I often include a thought in my leadership and supervisory training: Work harder at having character than being one. That is a great goal for all of us. One way to show strength of character is to look at our lives humbly and acknowledge our imperfections–it will remind us that we have very little reason to feel arrogant and superior and many reasons to empathize with others. It may also help us purge hate from our lives, so there is more room for goodness and clear thinking. That is the foundation of strength of character.
April 25th, 2009
Posted by
TLR |
Life and Work, Personal and Professional Development |
8 comments
While researching something completely different (you know how that goes!) I read about an urban legend of the 1970s and early 1980s, that resulted in millions of fearful people all over Europe and the United States. I can imagine how many email warnings I will receive from well-meaning friends, if it starts up again!
The pamphlet or leaflet that started the panic was a list of food additives that contain cancer causing substances. Among them was citric acid–one of the most prevalent food additives in the world and a chemical that occurs in every living organism. (Corn syrup is one of the ingredients in a large percentage of the citric acid used in food processing.)
As with many urban legends, whoever originated it (and that was never known) decided to give it more clout by saying it came from the Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute in Villejuif, France. (Pronounced, I think, as Villzhweef, more or less.) That attribution was untrue and so were the “facts” about most of the alleged toxins and carcinogens on the list. But, millions of people panicked and products containing citric acid were returned to stores by the bags–there are lots of things with citric acid, you’ll notice.
Apparently Internet access is not required to be suckered in by rumors, innuendos and shocking stories that are not true. Back then there was no Snopes site to clear things up, but you would think someone would have verified the information. As it was, the list was printed in newspapers and magazines and even pharmacists and doctors referred to it because of the Villejuif name. The hospital tried to convince people it was a hoax–but that was seen by some as being a conspiracy to cover-up the truth. As late as the 1990s a few so-called expert nutritionists warned people to avoid anything containing “deadly citric acid”.
Here is how some researchers think the mistake began: Citric acid is part of a chemical process called the Krebs Cycle. In the German language krebs means cancer. So, language confusion probably started it all. People who didn’t check the information kept it going. Another reminder that just because it’s on the Internet or in an email message–or in a leaflet–doesn’t make it so.
April 20th, 2009
Posted by
TLR |
Food, Fitness, Fun, Life and Work |
4 comments
When an employee is rude and unpleasant to a coworker, who should confront it–the coworker or the manager?
The answer to that question can be found through a few other questions:
1. Does the coworker lack the authority to require different behavior?
2. Has this employee acted discourteously before?
3. Is there a chance the rude employee might do similar things to other coworkers at another time?
4. Might the behavior affect the willingness of others to want to work with that employee or ask for assistance in the future?
5. If the employee used a similar tone or acted in a similar way with clients, would that be a problem?
If the answer to any of those is “Yes”, the manager should investigate. If the behavior was inappropriate the employee should be told so, why it was inappropriate, and what should have happened instead. Then, the manager should ask for a commitment from the employee to act differently in the future. There probably is a need for longer-term observation and development about effective behavior.
You or someone you know? You may know supervisors who push coworker disputes back onto the employees. They probably justify their actions by saying that employees need to learn to deal with their own conflicts. The problem with that approach is, some employees do not have the confidence or skill to deal with personal conflicts effectively. So, while one employee may stand up and stop the rude behavior, others are distracted and upset and avoid working around the rude person. Even employees who are willing to confront the behavior may do so by responding in a similar manner, which makes things miserable for everyone–and doesn’t keep the behavior from happening again.
Think about this as well: If an employee can’t be trusted to be consistently courteous and helpful to team members, how can they be trusted to be courteous and helpful to those outside your team?
Fulfill your role as a supervisor, manager and leader: If you become aware of rude, discourteous, unpleasant, insensitive, or inappropriate behavior in your workplace, use it as a chance to develop people and the team. Talk to the employee who acted unpleasantly and find out what was behind the behavior. Make sure the employee knows it can’t happen again and knows what he or she should do instead. Then, bring the team back together by keeping them focused on work and by commending the good work that is being done.
You will find much less bickering and upset when everyone knows you expect people to behave courteously, professionally and in a way that encourages cooperation and effectiveness–and that you will deal with it immediately if you become aware of a problem.
A bonus question to add to the five above:
6. Who is ultimately responsible for the effectiveness and well-being of the workplace–employees or the manager?
April 9th, 2009
Posted by
TLR |
Supervision and Management |
6 comments
“It is not losses and misfortunes
that take the joy from our lives,
it is fear.”
A.C. Benson, a 19th century writer made that observation–and it’s one that needs to be repeated often, as we get caught up in gloomy predictions about many things.
When Franklin Roosevelt was elected President in 1932, our country was experiencing an economic crisis. There was tremendous distrust of business and government as well as anger that things had been allowed to get so bad. During President Roosevelt’s inaugural address machine guns were mounted on buildings in case of a riot. A riot didn’t occur, but a great speech did–followed by action that supported his thoughts. Here is an excerpt:
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.
In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunk to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; and the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone. More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.
And yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered, because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply.
Timeless words! They don’t suggest there is nothing to worry about. But they do suggest that we can’t stand still and be paralysed–we have to move forward and make wise decisions. That same concept applies to our work lives, relationships, health, finances and anything else about which we are so fearful we sometimes feel paralysed and unable to make things better.
In 1967 I wanted to reflect something joyful in Christmas cards–in spite of increasingly bad news about events around the world. With all the fervor of a young woman wanting to make a positive statement, I wrote, “May you have the audacity to be happy in these troubled times!”
I think nowadays I would change it a bit, to just say, “May we have the wisdom to be happy.”
April 2nd, 2009
Posted by
TLR |
Life and Work |
5 comments
