Ethical Dilemmas

Activity: Ethical dilemma (3)
Required Reading:
Johannesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., & Whedbee, K. E. (2008). Chapters 10
Johnson, C. E. (2009). Chapter 4
Personal Risk in an Ethical Dilemma:
Provide an example of a time when you took a risk as an employee within an organization because of your ethical standards. Describe what you learned from this experience. Write in general. Do not name an organization you worked for.
Book
Johannesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., & Whedbee, K. E. (2008). Ethics in human communication. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. ISBN: 9781577665557
Book
Johnson, C. E. (2012). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow. (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. ISBN: 9781412982221
4
Combating Evil
Evil, in whatever intellectual framework, is by definition a monster.
—Essayist Lance Morrow
Without forgiveness there is no future.
—South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu
WHAT’S AHEAD
In this chapter, we wrestle with the most dangerous of all unhealthy motivations: evil. The first section surveys some of the forms or faces of evil. The second section examines the role of forgiveness in breaking cycles of evil. The third section probes the relationship between spirituality and leadership, highlighting how spiritual practices can equip us to deal with evil and foster more ethical, productive workplaces.
The Faces of Evil
The attacks on the World Trade Center, Madrid commuter trains, and the London Underground; the systematic rape of thousands of women in the
118 PART II. Looking Inward
Congo; suicide bombings and prisoner abuse (see “Leadership Ethics at the Movies: Taxi to the Dark Side”) in the Middle East; and genocide in Darfur (see Case Study 4.1) have heightened national and international awareness of the existence of evil. While recognizing the presence of evil is an important first step, we can’t combat this powerful force until we first understand our opponent. Contemporary Western definitions of evil emphasize its destructiveness.’ Evil inflicts pain and suffering, deprives innocent people of their humanity, and creates feelings of hopelessness and despair. Evildoers do excessive harm, going well beyond what is needed to achieve their objectives. The ultimate product of evil is death. Evil destroys self-esteem, physical and emotional well-being, relationships, communities, and nations.
We can gain some important insights into the nature of evil by looking at the various forms or faces it displays. In this section, I’ll introduce six per¬spectives on evil and then talk about how each approach can help us better deal with this powerful, destructive force.
CASE STUDY 4.1
RESPONDING TO THE REMNANTS OF GENOCIDE
Darfur is a barren, mountainous region in western Sudan, which is south of the Sahara. Arabs (largely nomads) and Black villagers (some of whom are also Muslim) generally lived in peace until non-Arab tribes joined together to rebel against the Sudanese government in 2003. Sudanese authorities in the capital of Khartoum retaliated by arming militias—the Janjaweed—and turning them loose to empty the region of African civilians. The Janjaweed, equipped with machine guns and rocket-propelled gre¬nades, overwhelmed local patrols armed with bows and arrows and spears. They then engaged in an orgy of rape, killing, and looting, leaving nothing but corpses and smoldering ashes in their wake. Between 300,000 and 400,000 people died in the region, and 3 million fled to refugee camps. The number of deaths dropped dramatically after six years, not due to the inter¬vention of world governments, but largely because there were so few civil¬ians left to murder. “Remnants of genocide” remain, however, as displaced Sudanese struggle to survive and rival Arab militias and rebel groups battle one another. At the same time, civil war in southern Sudan (ended through a peace settlement) threatens to reignite.
The humanitarian crisis in Darfur sparked a massive relief effort. Ten thousand aid workers from the United Nations and 13 other humanitarian
CHAPTER 4. Combating Evil 119
groups, including Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam, and Save the Children, supplied food, water, medical care, and other services to the refugee camps. But when the International Criminal Court (ICC) indicted Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of war crimes, al-Bashir ordered all inter¬national aid groups except the United Nations out of the country. (United Nations aid workers remained but were threatened with expulsion.) Death rates due to malnutrition, meningitis, and contaminated water rose imme¬diately after the relief agencies departed.
Al-Bashir’s indictment (the first to be brought against a sitting head of state) pitted human rights and humanitarian groups against one another. One side wanted to vigorously pursue al-Bashir’s conviction, fearing that failure to do so would undermine the ICC and allow the architect of the genocide to remain free. On the other side were those who feared that pressing legal action would make the crisis in Darfur worse and threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of refugees. They argued that human¬itarian concerns should take priority over justice. Said one Darfur advo¬cate, “Who are we to say that Darfuris must pay the price of international justice?”‘
Members of the Obama administration also debated whether to take a tough or softer approach to Sudan, finally settling on the latter. Instead of pushing for al-Bashir’s conviction and implementing a no-fly zone over the country, federal officials decided to try a mix of incentives (e.g., reduc¬ing sanctions), pressure, and direct negotiation. They noted that the country was no longer a haven for al-Qaida and other terrorists and that they did not want to endanger the peace agreement between Khartoum and rebels in southern Sudan. Officials hoped that a friendlier approach, along with the diplomatic efforts of nations like France and Egypt, would convince al-Bashir to let humanitarian workers return and set the stage for disarming militias and returning displaced persons to their homes. Of course, this strategy requires dealing directly with the regime behind the mass murders. U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice argued that engagement with al-Bashir and other Sudanese officials should be seen not as a reward but as the only way to bring peace and security to the region. U.S. special Sudan envoy General Scott Gration defended the government’s new policy by quoting an old African proverb. “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, you have to go with someone. We want to go far and to do that we are going to have to go with Khartoum.”‘
(Continued)
120 PART II. Looking Inward
(Continued)
Discussion Probes
1. Should humanitarian concerns take priority over justice in Darfur? Why or why not?
2. What are the dangers of delaying prosecution of al-Bashir?
3. Did the U.S. government make the right choice in deciding to take a softer approach to the Sudanese government?
4. Do you think that the United States and other governments will restore peace and security (“go far”) by working directly with the government of Sudan?
5. Is it ethical to engage in direct negotiations with evil leaders? Why or why not?
6. What leadership ethics lessons do you take from this case?
Notes
1. Sudan; be tough on Al-Bashir, activists tell Obama. (2009, September 14). Africa News.
2, Thompson, G. (2009, October 18). Sudan’s critics relieved that Obama chose a middle course. The New York Times, p. A10.
Sources
Addario, L., & Polgreen, L. (2009, March 23). In aid groups’ expulsion, fears of more misery engulfing Darfur. The New York Times, p. A6.
Baker, P. (2009, March 18). Adding pressure to Sudan, Obama will tap retired general as special envoy. The New York Times, p. A6.
Gettleman, J. (2007, September 3). Chaos in Darfur on rise as Arabs fight with Arabs. The New York Times, p. Al.
Hoge, W. (2007, September 7). Sudan officials and rebels to discuss peace in Darfur. The New York Times, p. Al2.
Leader of Darfur peacekeeping mission resigns. (2009, August 26). The New York Times, p. A10.
MacFarquhar, N. (2009, August 28). As Darfur fighting diminishes, U.N. officials focus on the south of Sudan. The New York Times, p. A4.
Perry, A. (2007, March 19). A war without end gets worse. Time.
Perry, A. (2007, May 7). How to prevent the next Darfur. Time.
Petrou, M., & Savage, L. (2006, December 11). Genocide in slow motion. Maclean’s, pp. 35-41.
CHAPTER 4. Combating Evil 121
I
Reeves, E. (2007, Summer). Genocide without end? The destruction of Darfur. Dissent, pp. 9-13. Sudan; be tough on Al-Bashir, activists tell Obama. (2009, September 14). Africa News. Thompson, G. (2009, October 18). Sudan’s critics relieved that Obama chose a middle course. The New York Times, p. A10. Evil as Dreadful Pleasure
University of Maryland political science professor C. Fred Alford defines evil as a combination of dread and pleasure. Alford recruited 60 respondents from a variety of ages and backgrounds to talk about their experiences with evil. He discovered that people experience evil as a deep sense of uneasiness, “the dread of being human, vulnerable, alone in the universe and doomed to die.”2 They do evil when, instead of coming to grips with their inner dark¬ness, they try to get rid of it by making others feel “dreadful.” Inflicting this pain is enjoyable. Part of the pleasure comes from being in charge, of being the victimizer instead of the victim.
Evil can also be a product of chronic boredom.’ Boredom arises when people lose their sense of meaning and purpose. They no longer enjoy life and try to fill the emptiness they feel inside. Ordinary distractions such as television, movies, surfing the Internet, shopping, and sports don’t fill the void, so people turn to evil instead. Evil is an attractive alternative because it engages the full energy and attention of perpetrators. For example, a serial killer has to plan his crimes, locate victims, keep his actions secret, and outsmart law enforcement.
Evil as Deception
Psychiatrist Scott Peck identifies evil as a form of narcissism or self-absorp¬tion.’ Mentally healthy adults submit themselves to something beyond them¬selves, such as God or love or excellence. Submission to a greater power encourages them to obey their consciences. Evil people, on the other hand, refuse to submit and try to control others instead. They consider themselves above reproach and project their shortcomings, attacking anyone who threatens their self-concepts. Evil people are consumed with keeping up appearances. Peck calls them “the people of the lie” because they deceive themselves and others in hopes of projecting a righteous image. Peck believes that truly evil people are more likely to live in our neighborhoods than in our jails. They generally hide their true natures and appear to be normal and successful. Inmates, on the other hand, land in prison because they’ve been morally inconsistent or stupid.
122 PART II. Looking Inward
4 LEADERSHIP ETHICS AT THE MOVIES
TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE
Key Cast Members: Alex Gibney (narrator), Moazzam Begg, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Tim Golden, John McCain, Lawrence Wilkerson, military jailers
Synopsis: This Oscar-winning documentary examines the torture policies of the Bush administration in Afghanistan, at Guantanamo Bay, and in Iraq following the September 11 attacks. In 2002 a young taxi driver was falsely accused of terrorist activities and sent to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Three days later he died from injuries inflicted by American military police and interrogators. The driver was a victim, not only of his jailers, but also of policy set at the highest levels of the U.S. government. The president, vice president, defense secretary, and other federal officials sanctioned sleep deprivation, waterboarding, stress positions, and other “enhanced” interrogation methods that violated international law. Many of the victims of these tactics were falsely imprisoned. Much of the information gleaned through torture and sexual humiliation turned out to be false, as prisoners told their captors what they wanted to hear in hopes of avoiding further suffering.
Rating: R for extremely graphic images of torture and sexual humiliation Themes: sanctioned evil, dehumanization, evil as ordinary, cycle of evil Discussion Starters
1. Which of the faces of evil do you see in this story?
2. Was the use of torture justified after the September 11 attacks? Is it ever justified?
3. Who was most to blame for the prisoner abuse—the jailers or the high-level leaders who sanctioned the use of severe interrogation methods?
Evil as Bureaucracy
The 20th century was the bloodiest period in history. More than 100 million people died as the direct or indirect result of wars, genocide, and other vio¬lence. According to public administration professors Guy Adams and Danny Balfour, the combination of science and technology made the 1900s so destructive.’ Scientific and technological developments (tanks, airplanes, chemical warfare, nuclear weapons) made killing highly efficient. At the same time, belief in technological progress encouraged government officials
CHAPTER 4. Combating Evil 123
to take a rational approach to problems. The integration of these factors produced administrative evil. In administrative evil, organizational members commit heinous crimes while carrying out their daily tasks. Balfour and Adams argue that the true nature of administrative evil is masked or hidden from participants. Officials are rarely asked to engage in evil; instead they inflict pain and suffering while fulfilling their job responsibilities.
The Holocaust provides the most vivid example of administrative evil in action. Extermination camps in Germany would not have been possible with¬out the willing cooperation of thousands of civil servants engaged in such functions as collecting taxes, running municipal governments, and managing the country’s social security system. These duties may seem morally neutral, but in carrying them out public officials condemned millions to death. Government authorities defined who was undesirable and then seized their assets. Administrators managed the ghettos, built concentration camp latrines, and employed slave labor. Even the railway authority did its part. The Gestapo had to pay for each prisoner shipped by rail to the death camps. Railroad officials billed the SS at third-class passenger rates (one way) for adult prison¬ers, with discounts for children. Guards were charged round-trip fares.
Evil as Sanctioned Destruction
Social scientists Nevitt Sanford and Craig Comstock believe that widespread evil occurs when victimizers are given permission or sanction to attack groups that have been devalued or dehumanized.’ Such permission opens the door for such crimes as mass murder and genocide. Sanctions can be overt (a direct statement or order) or disguised (a hint, praise for others engaging in aggressive behavior). Once given, sanctions open the door to oppression because targeted groups no longer enjoy the protections given to the rest of society. American history is filled with examples of devalued peoples. Native Americans were targeted for extinction; African Americans were routinely lynched for, among other reasons, public entertainment; and Chinese labor¬ers were denied citizenship. Recently the entire U.S. population has become the target of dehumanization. Some Muslims consider the United States to be the “Great Satan,” populated by infidels. Such reasoning accounts for the spontaneous celebrations that broke out on the streets of some Islamic nations on news of the 9/11 attacks. (Of course, far too many Americans were quick to label all Muslims as “terrorists.”)
Evil as a Choice
Any discussion of good and evil must consider the role of human choice. Just how much freedom we have is a matter of debate, but a number of scholars argue that we become good or evil through a series of small, incremental
124 PART II. Looking Inward
decisions. In other words, we never remain neutral but are moving toward one pole or another. Medieval scholar C. S. Lewis draws on the image of a road to illustrate this point.’ On a journey, we decide which direction to take every time we come to a fork in the road. We face a similar series of decisions throughout our lives. We can’t correct poor decisions by continuing on but must go back to the fork and take the other path.
Psychologist Erich Fromm makes the same argument as Lewis. Only those who are very good or very bad do not have a choice; the rest of us do. However, each choice we make reduces our options.
Each step in life which increases my self-confidence, my integrity, my courage, my conviction also increases my capacity to choose the desirable alternative, until eventually it becomes more difficult to choose the undesirable rather than the desirable action. On the other hand, each act of surrender and cowardice weakens me, opens the path for more acts of surrender, and eventually freedom is lost. Between the extreme when I can no longer do a wrong act and the other extreme when I have lost my freedom to right action, there are innumerable degrees of freedom of choice. In the practice of life the degree of freedom to choose is different at any given moment. If the degree of freedom to choose the good is great, it needs less effort to choose the good. If it is small, it takes a great effort, help from others, and favorable circumstances.’
Fromm uses the story of Israel’s exodus from ancient Egypt to illustrate what happens when leaders make a series of evil choices. Moses repeatedly asks Pharaoh to let his people go, but the Egyptian ruler turns down every request. Eventually the king’s heart is “hardened,” and he and his army are destroyed.
Evil as Ordinary
The evil-as-ordinary perspective focuses on the situational factors that cause otherwise ordinary or normal people to become evildoers. Although it is comforting to think that evildoers must be heartless psychopaths or deranged killers, in many cases perpetrators look and act a lot like the rest of us. Social philosopher Hannah Arendt pointed this out in her analysis of the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961.9 Eichmann was responsible for deportation of mil¬lions of Jews to concentration and extermination camps. What struck Arendt was how ordinary Eichmann seemed. Half of a dozen psychiatrists examined him and certified him as “normal.” Arendt used the phrase the “banality of evil” when describing Eichmann to point out that the sources of evil are not mysterious or demonic but commonplace. If that is the case, then any one of us can commit heinous crimes. The Rwandan genocide
CHAPTER 4. Combating Evil 125
supports Arendt’s thesis. Thousands of ordinary Rwandan Hutus literally went next door or across the street to hack and beat their Tutsi neighbors to death with machetes and other farm implements. Interviews with one group of young killers revealed a chilling routine. They would have a hearty break¬fast (running down Tutsis took a lot of energy), meet at the soccer field to get their assignments to kill or loot, march off singing, find and murder victims until the final whistle blew, and then relax with beer and food after a hard day’s work.1°
Philip Zimbardo and other social psychologists have identified a number of situational factors that can turn otherwise “nice” people into torturers and murderers.” Zimbardo discovered firsthand the power of the system to promote unethical behavior through his famous Stanford Prison Experiment. He created a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department and randomly assigned student volunteers to roles as prisoners and guards. It didn’t take long for both groups to get caught up in their roles. Soon the prisoners revolted and the guards retaliated. The jailers strip-searched pris-oners, forced them into prolonged exercise, put them into solitary confine¬ment, denied them bathroom privileges (they had to urinate and defecate in their cells), and made them clean toilets by hand. Two prisoners suffered significant emotional trauma and had to be immediately released from the experiment. Zimbardo, who served as the prison warden, also got caught up in the role-play. At one point, he tried to transfer the experiment to an empty cell at the local police station to ensure more security. He got angry when the police refused his request. Zimbardo ended the experiment early after a visitor (who would later become his wife) complained about the disgusting conditions at the “jail.” Of the 50 outsiders who visited the experiment, she was the only person to object.
Zimbardo went on to analyze the role of situational variables in real-life cases of evil such as the widespread torture of political opponents in Brazil and prisoner abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. According to Zimbardo, ordinary people, such as the military guards at Abu Ghraib, are motivated to do evil when they feel peer pressure to participate in such acts, obey authority, remain anonymous, are given permission to engage in antisocial behavior, and dehumanize others (treat them as less than fully human). Evil is likely to continue when others fail to intervene to stop it.
Facing Evil
Each of the perspectives just described provides insights into how we as leaders can come to grips with evil. The dreadful pleasure approach
126 PART II. Looking Inward
highlights both the origins of evil and the attraction of doing evil, forcing us to examine our motivations. We need to ask ourselves, “Am I projecting my insecurities onto others?” “Am I punishing a subordinate because of her or his poor performance or because exercising coercive power makes me feel strong?” “Am I making a legitimate request or merely demonstrating that I have the authority to control another person?” “Am I tempted to harm others just to fill the emptiness I feel inside?”
The evil-as-deception viewpoint makes it clear that people aren’t always as they seem. On the surface, evil people appear to be successful and well adjusted. In reality, they exert tremendous energy keeping up appearances. (Turn to Case Study 4.2 on page 141 for a chilling example of how two young evildoers were able to mislead their families and authorities until it was too late.) Deceit and defensiveness can serve as warning signs. If we routinely lie to protect our images, refuse constructive feedback, and always blame others, we may be engaged in evil. The same may be true of other leaders and followers who display these behaviors. Peck, like Parker Palmer, believes that to master our inner demons we must first name them. Once we’ve identified these tendencies, we can begin to deal with them by examining our will. We should determine whether we’re willing to submit to a positive force (an ideal, authority) that is greater than we are. Peck urges us to respond to the destructive acts of others with love. Instead of attacking evildoers, we can react with goodness and thereby “absorb” the power of evil.
The administrative evil perspective introduces a new type of evil, one based on technology and logic. Modern evil has greater capacity for destruc¬tion. Its impact, once contained by distance and technological limitations, now extends to the entire world. Globalization and the miniaturization of nuclear and biochemical weapons mean that just one person can wreak as much havoc as infamous world leaders such as Caligula and Stalin did in the past.12 Furthermore, the face of evil may be masked or hidden from those who participate in it. We need to be aware of how our activities contribute to good or evil. Claiming that we were “just following orders” is no excuse.
The evil-as-sanction approach should alert us to the danger of dehuman-izing any segment of the population. Language is one of the evildoers’ most powerful tools. It is much easier to persecute others who have been labeled as “nerds,” “radicals,” “scum,” “Muslim extremists,” or “tree huggers.” We need to challenge and eliminate these labels (whether we use them or someone else does). Also, we must be alert to disguised sanctions. If we don’t respond to racial slurs, for example, we legitimize these behaviors and encourage future attacks.
Evil as a choice puts the ethical burden squarely on our shoulders. Group and organizational pressures may contribute to our wrongdoing. However, we make the decision to participate in evil acts. Furthermore, the choices we
CI ‘AFTER 4. Combating Evil 127
make now will limit our options in the future. Every moral decision, no mat¬ter how insignificant it seems at the time, has lasting consequences.
The final perspective, evil as ordinary, is a sobering reminder that we all have the potential to become evildoers. Not only do we as followers need to resist situational influences that can turn us into brutes (see “Focus on Follower Ethics: Resisting Situational Pressures to Do Evil”), but also as leaders we should eliminate conditions that promote evil behavior in our subordinates. It is our ethical duty to intervene when we see evil behavior and to reward others who do the same.
•
Isma„.,a ,c,a5glIriipxgiyerim , ,30-4,9,0 ,..P.A1M4.6,4,’1010t4.7.11143(.0.43.071MAWRi*
Breaking the Cycle of Evil
Scott Peck is not alone in arguing that loving acts can overcome evil. A grow-ing number of social scientists believe that forgiving instead of retaliating can prevent or break cycles of evil. In a cycle of evil, aggressive acts provoke retaliation followed by more aggression. When these destructive patterns characterize relations between ethnic groups (e.g., Turks vs. Armenians, Serbs vs. Croats), they can continue for hundreds of years. Courageous leaders can end retaliatory cycles through dramatic acts of reconciliation, however. Former Egyptian Prime Minister Anwar al-Sadat engaged in one such concil¬iatory gesture when he traveled to Jerusalem to further the peace process with Israel. Pope John Paul II went to the jail cell of his would-be assassin to offer forgiveness. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela prevented a bloodbath in South Africa by creating the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This body, made up of both Blacks and Whites, investigated crimes committed during the apartheid era and allowed offenders to confess their guilt and ask for pardon. Similar commissions were created after wide-spread torture and murder in Argentina, Peru, and Rwanda.
• FOCUS ON FOLLOWER ETHICS
RESISTING SITUATIONAL PRESSURES TO DO EVIL:
A 10-STEP PROGRAM
Philip Zimbardo offers the following 10-step program designed to help follow¬ers resist situational forces that promote evildoing.
(Continued)
128 PART II. Looking Inward
(Continued)
“I made a mistake!” Admit your mistakes. (Say, “I’m sorry”; “I apologize”; “Forgive me.”) Vow to learn from your errors and move on. Don’t stay the course if you are engaged in an immoral activity.
“I am mindful.” Don’t rely on scripts from the past. They can blind you to the tactics of influencers and key elements of the situation. Instead, pay close attention to (be mindful of) the here and now. In addition, think critically. Ask for evidence, imagine future consequences, and reject simple solutions to complex problems. Encourage others to do the same.
“I am responsible.” Maintaining personal accountability increases your resistance to conformity pressures. Take charge of your decisions and actions rather than spreading responsibility to your group, coworkers, or military unit. Remember that claiming “everyone else was doing it” is no defense in a court of law.
“I am me, the best I can be.” Don’t let others take away your individuality, making you anonymous. State your name, credentials, and unique features.
“I respect just authority but rebel against unjust authority.” Distinguish between those in authority who deserve your respect and those who are leading others astray or promoting their own interests. Critically evaluate and disobey destructive leaders.
“I want group acceptance but value my independence.” Group acceptance is a powerful force but shouldn’t overpower your sense of right and wrong. Resist social pressure by stepping out of the group, getting other opinions, and finding new groups more in line with your values.
“I will be more frame-vigilant.” Frames (words, pictures, slogans, logos) shape our attitudes toward issues and people, often without our being aware of their impact. For example, many politicians use the colors of the flag—red, white, and blue—on their campaign signs and other materials. Be vigilant, noting the way that the frame is designed to shape your thoughts and emotions.
“I will balance my time perspective.” Living in the present increases the power of situational influences that promote evil. You are less likely to go along with abusive behavior if you consider the long-term consequences of such actions and remember the values and standards you developed in the past.
CHAPTER 4. Combating Evil 129
“I will not sacrifice personal or civic freedoms for the illusion of security.” Reject any offer that involves sacrificing even small freedoms for the promise of future security. Such sacrifices (e.g., loss of privacy, legal protections, and freedom of speech) are immediate and real, but the promised security is often a distant illusion.
“I can oppose unjust systems.” Join with others to resist systems that promote evil. Try to bring about change, blow the whistle on corruption, get away from the group or organization, resist groupthink, draw on the resources of outsiders, and so on.
SOURCE: Adapted from Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House, pp. 451-456.
The concept of forgiving evildoers is controversial.” (See Case Study 4.3 on page 144 for a closer look at some of the issues raised by forgiveness.) Skeptics worry that (1) guilty parties will get off without acknowledging they have done wrong or paying for their crimes, (2) forgiveness is a sign of weakness, (3) forgiveness is impossible in some situations, (4) forgiveness can’t be offered until the offender asks for it, and (5) no leader has the right to offer forgiveness on behalf of other victims. Each of these concerns is valid. You will have to decide whether forgiveness is an appropriate response to evil deeds. However, before you make that determination, I want to describe the forgiveness process and identify some of the benefits that come from extending mercy to others.
The Forgiveness Process
There are many misconceptions about what it means to forgive another person or group of people. According to Robert Enright, professor of edu¬cational psychology and president of the International Forgiveness Institute at the University of Wisconsin, forgiveness is not the following:”
• Forgetting past wrongs to “move on”
• Excusing or condoning bad, damaging behavior
• Reconciliation or coming together again (forgiveness opens the way to reconciliation, but the other person must change or desire to reconcile)
• Reducing the severity of offenses
• Offering a legal pardon
130 PART II. Looking Inward
• Pretending to forgive in order to wield power over another person
• Ignoring the offender
• Dropping our anger and becoming emotionally neutral
Enright and his colleagues define forgiveness as “a willingness to abandon one’s right to resentment, negative judgment, and indifferent behavior toward one who unjustly injured us, while fostering the undeserved qualities of compassion, generosity, and even love toward him or her.”" This definition recognizes that the wronged party has been unjustly treated (slandered, betrayed, imprisoned); the offended person willingly chooses forgiveness regardless of the offender’s response; forgiving involves emotions, thoughts, and behavior; and forgiveness is a process that takes place over time. (To measure your likelihood to forgive others, complete the “Self-Assessment: Tendency to Forgive Scale.”)
Enright and his fellow researchers offer a four-stage model to help people forgive. (A list of the psychological factors that go into each stage is found in Box 4.1 on page 132.) In the first phase, uncovering, a victim may initially deny that a problem exists. However, when the person does acknowledge the hurt, he or she may experience intense feelings of anger, shame, and betrayal. The victim invests a lot of psychic energy in rehashing the offense and com-paring his or her condition with that of the offender. Feeling permanently damaged, the person may believe that life is unfair.
During the second phase, decision, the injured party recognizes that he or she is paying a high price for dwelling on the injury, considers the possibility of forgiveness, and commits himself or herself to forgiving.
Forgiveness is accomplished in the third stage, work. The wronged party tries to understand (not condone) the victimizer’s background and motiva¬tion. He or she may experience empathy and compassion for the offender. Absorbing pain is the key to this stage. The forgiver decides to endure suf-fering rather than pass it on, thereby breaking the cycle of evil. Viewed in this light, forgiveness is a gift of mercy to the wrongdoer.
CHAPTER 4. Combating Evil 131
SELF-ASSESSMENT
TENDENCY TO FORGIVE SCALE
Instructions: Respond to each of the following items on a scale of 1 (strongly dis¬agree) to 7 (strongly agree).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
1. “I tend to get over it quickly when someone hurts my feelings.”
2. if someone wrongs me, I often think about it a lot afterward.”
3. “I have a tendency to harbor grudges.”
4. “When people wrong me, my approach is just to forgive and forget.”
Scoring:
Reverse your scores on items 2 and 3 and then add up your responses to all four statements. The higher the score (possible scores range from 4 to 28), the more likely you are to forgive others and the less likely you are to bring up offenses from the past.
SOURCE: Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct validity and links with depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, p. 770. Published by SAGE Publications on behalf of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology., Inc.
132 PART II. Looking Inward
The fourth and final phase, deepening, describes the outcomes of forgiv¬ing. A forgiver may find deeper meaning in suffering, realize his or her own need for forgiveness, and come to a greater appreciation for support groups (friends, congregations, classmates). In the end, the person offering forgive¬ness may develop a new purpose in life and find peace.
The four-stage model has been used successfully with a variety of audi-ences: survivors of incest, inmates, college students deprived of parental love, heart patients, substance abusers, and elderly women suffering from depression. In each case, forgivers experienced significant healing. Enright emphasizes that personal benefits should be a by-product, not the motiva-tion, for forgiving. Nonetheless, a growing body of evidence suggests that forgiveness can pay significant psychological, physical, and relational divi¬dends.’ Those who forgive are released from resentments and experience less depression and anxiety. Overall, they enjoy a higher sense of well-being. By releasing their grudges, forgivers experience better physical health. Reducing anger, hostility, and hopelessness lowers the risks of heart attack and high blood pressure while increasing the body’s resistance to disease. Acting mercifully toward transgressors also maintains relationships between friends and family members.
BOX 4.1 PSYCHOLOGICAL ELEMENTS
OF FORGIVENESS
PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES THAT MAY
BE INVOLVED WHEN WE FORGIVE
Uncovering Phase
• Evaluation of psychological defenses.
• Confrontation of anger; the point is to release, not harbor, the anger.
• Admittance of shame, when this is appropriate.
• Awareness of cathexis.
• Awareness of cognitive rehearsal of the offense.
• Insight that the injured party may be comparing self with the injurer.
• Realization that one may be permanently and adversely changed by the injury.
• Insight into a possibly altered “just world” view.
CHAPTER 4. Combating Evil 133
Decision Phase
• A change of heart, conversion, new insights that old resolution strategies are not working.
• Willingness to consider forgiveness as an option.
• Commitment to forgive the offender.
Work Phase
• Reframing, through role taking, who the wrongdoer is by viewing him or her in context.
• Empathy toward the offender.
• Awareness of compassion, as it emerges, toward the offender.
• Acceptance and absorption of the pain.
Deepening Phase
• Finding meaning for self and others in the suffering and in the forgiveness process.
• Realization that self has needed others’ forgiveness in the past.
• Insight that one is not alone (universality, support).
• Realization that self may have a new purpose in life because of the injury.
• Awareness of decreased negative affect and, perhaps, increased positive affect, if this begins to emerge, toward the injurer; awareness of internal, emotional release.
–tfreet+6-697150.3 84 SOURCE: Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring Forgiveness © 1998 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. Reprinted by permission of The University of Wisconsin Press.
The social-scientific study of forgiveness is continuing, and results are extremely encouraging. Forgiving does appear to absorb or defuse evil. If this is the case, then as leaders we should practice forgiveness when treated unjustly by followers, supervisors, peers, or outsiders. When we give offense ourselves, we will need to apologize and ask for mercy. At times, though, we will need to go further and follow the example of Anwar al-Sadat and Nelson Mandela by offering forgiveness on behalf of followers in hopes of reconciling with a long-standing enemy. We may also need to offer a collec¬tive apology in order to facilitate reconciliation between our group and those we have offended. Such political apologies are becoming increasingly common.” For example:
134 PART II. Looking Inward
• Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair apologized for his country’s inaction during the Irish potato famine.
• The Belgian prime minister apologized to Rwandans for not stepping in to prevent the 1994 genocide.
• Germany’s Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder requested forgiveness from the Russian people for the damage done by his nation during World War II.
• Bill Clinton expressed regret to Ugandans for African slavery.
• The Natal Law Society apologized for excluding Mohandas K. Gandhi from the practice of law in South Africa.
• The U.S. Senate passed a resolution apologizing for not enacting legislation that would have made lynching a federal crime.
• The Oregon state legislature held a public session to revoke and to express regret about an 1849 law that prohibited African Americans from entering Oregon territory.
Donald Shriver uses the metaphor of a cable to explain how warring groups can overcome their mutual hatred and bind together to restore fractured relationships.” This cable is made up of four strands. The first strand is moral truth. Forgiveness starts with recalling the past and rendering a moral judgment. Both parties need to agree that one or both engaged in behavior that was wrong (see the discussion of political apologies above) and unjust and caused injury. Refusal to admit the truth makes reconciliation impossible. That’s why South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission began the process of national healing after apartheid by publicly airing Black victims’ statements and requests for amnesty by White police officers.
The second strand of the cable is forbearance. Forbearance means reject¬ing revenge in favor of restraint. Moral indignation often fuels new crimes as offended parties take their vengeance. Forbearance breaks this pattern and may soften enemies who expect retaliation.
The third strand is empathy for the enemies’ humanity. Empathy doesn’t excuse wrongs but acknowledges that offender and offended share much in common. This recognition opens the way for both sides to live together in peace. Ulysses S. Grant demonstrated how to combine the judgment of wrong with empathy at Appomattox. When Southern troops surrendered to end the Civil War, Grant wrote the following in his journal. “I felt . . . sad and depressed at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought.”‘
The fourth and final strand of the forgiveness cable is commitment to restore the broken relationship. Forgivers must be prepared to live and inter¬act with their former enemies. At first, the two parties probably will coexist in a state of mutual toleration. Later, they may fully reconcile, as the United States and Germany have done since the end of World War II.
CHAPTER 4. Combating Evil 135
In sum, I believe that forgiveness is one of a leader’s most powerful weap¬ons in the fight against evil. Or, to return to the central metaphor of this text, forgiving is one of the ways in which leaders cast light rather than shadow. We must face our inner darkness, particularly our resentments and hostili¬ties, in order to offer genuine forgiveness. By forgiving, we short-circuit or break the shadowy, destructive cycles that poison groups, organizations, or societies. Offering forgiveness brightens our lives by reducing our anxiety levels and enhancing our sense of well-being. Requesting forgiveness opens the door for reconciliation.
Spirituality and Leadership
Coming to grips with evil is hard work. We must always be on the lookout for evil whatever form it takes, continually evaluate our motivations and choices, and make a conscious effort to forgive by reshaping our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. A great number of leaders turn to spirituality to help equip themselves for these tasks. If spirituality seems to be a strange topic to discuss in a book about leadership ethics, consider the recent explosion of interest in spirituality in the workplace. More and more academics are studying the link between spiritual values and practices and organizational performance. One of the fastest-growing interest groups in the Academy of Management, for example, focuses on the connection between spirituality and managerial practice and publishes the Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion. A number of other scholarly journals (Journal of Managerial Psychology, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Journal of Management Education, The Leadership Quarterly, and Journal of Management Inquiry) have devoted special issues to the topic. According to one survey, 1,598 articles with the word spirituality in the title appeared in social science journals between 1991 and 2008 (232 dealt specifically with workplace spirituality).’ Approximately 80% of these articles appeared after the year 2000. The publication rate for books on workplace spirituality also demonstrates that interest in the topic continues to accelerate. Of 72 books published on the topic over the past two decades, nearly half were written in the last five years.
Popular interest in spirituality is also surging. Meditation rooms and reflective gardens are part of many company headquarters. Some organiza-tions sponsor groups for spiritual seekers, hire chaplains, and send employ-ees to business and spirituality workshops. Tom’s of Maine, Toro, BioGenex, and Medtronic integrate spiritual values into their organizational cultures. David Whyte, James Autry, and Thomas Chappell are a few of the popular writers who encourage spiritual development at work.
136 PART II. Looking Inward
The recent surge of interest in spirituality in the workplace has been fueled in large part by the growing importance of organizations. For better or worse, the organization has replaced other groups (family, church, social groups) as the dominant institution in society. Work takes up increasing amounts of our time and energy. As a result, we tend to develop more friend¬ships with coworkers and fewer with people outside the organization. Many of us want a higher return on this investment of time and energy, seeking meaningful tasks and relationships that serve higher purposes. At the same time, downsizing, restructuring, rapid change, and information overload have generated fear and uncertainty in the workplace, which prompts us to seek stability and to reexamine our lives!’ Baby boomers, in particular, are reevaluating their priorities, shifting their focus from individual achievement toward purpose and community. For their part, organizations hope to ben¬efit from more connected members. Investigators have discovered that spiri¬tuality enhances the following:22
• Commitment to mission, core values, and ethical standards
• Organizational learning and creativity
• Morale
• Productivity and profitability
• Collaboration
• Loyalty
• Willingness to mentor others
• Job effort
• Job satisfaction
• Social support
• Sensitivity to ethical issues 5197494 2013/08/15 68.50.32.84
Donde Ashmos Plowman and Dennis Duchon define workplace spirituality as “the recognition that employees have an inner life that nourishes and is nourished by meaningful work that takes place in the context of community.”23 The inner life refers to the fact that employees have spiritual needs (their core identity and values) just as they have emotional, physical, and intellectual wants, and they bring the whole person to work. Even industrialist Henry Ford, who only wanted human cogs for his automobile assembly line, noted this fact. “Why is it that I always get the whole person,” he complained, “when all I really want is a pair of hands?”24 Meaningful work describes the fact that workers typically are motivated by more than material rewards. They want their labor to be fulfilling and to serve the needs of society. Community refers to the fact that organization members desire connection to others. A sense of belonging fosters the inner life. It should be noted that religion and spirituality overlap but are not identical. Religious institutions
CHAPTER 4. Combating Evil 137
encourage and structure spiritual experiences, but spiritual encounters can occur outside formal religious channels.25
Interest in spiritual leadership is an offshoot of the larger workplace spirituality movement. Many leaders report that spirituality has played an important role in their character development, giving them the courage to persist in the face of obstacles, remain optimistic, demonstrate compassion, learn from hardship, and clarify their values.” Spiritual leadership expert Laura Reave reviewed more than 150 studies and found that leaders who see their work as a calling demonstrate a higher degree of integrity (honesty) and humility, key virtues described in Chapter 3. These character traits, in turn, build trust with followers and foster honest communication.’ Reave also found that leaders who engage in common spiritual practices are both more ethical and more effective. These behaviors, emphasized in a variety of belief systems, include the following:
• Demonstrating respect for others’ values. Many spiritual traditions emphasize respect for the individual. Ethical leaders demonstrate their respect for follow¬ers by including them in important decisions. By doing so, they empower fol¬lowers and bring individual, group, and organizational values into alignment. When values are aligned, an organization is more likely to enjoy long-term
success.
• Treating others fairly. Fairness is a natural outcome of viewing others with respect. Employees are very concerned about how fairly they are treated, par¬ticularly when it comes to compensation. Followers are more likely to trust leaders who act justly. Subordinates who believe that their supervisors are fair also go beyond their job descriptions to help coworkers.
• Expression of caring and concern. Spirituality often takes the form of support¬ive behavior. Caring leaders typically have more satisfied and productive fol¬lowers. Concerned leaders are also more likely to build positive relationships that are the key to their personal success. Furthermore, demonstrating care and concern for the community pays dividends. Employees working for firms known for their corporate philanthropy rate their work environments as excel¬lent and ethical, get a greater sense of achievement from their work, and take more pride in their companies.
• Listening responsively. Listening and responding to the needs of others is another practice promoted in many spiritual paths. Good listeners are more likely to emerge as group leaders; organizational leaders who demonstrate better listening skills are rated as more effective. Ethical leaders also respond to what they hear by acting on feedback and suggestions.
• Appreciating the contributions of others. Most of the world’s faith traditions encourage adherents to treat others as creations of God who are worthy of praise. Praise of God’s creation, in turn, becomes an expression of gratitude to God. In the workplace, recognizing and praising employee contributions
138 PART 11. Looking Inward
generates goodwill toward the organization, creates a sense of community, and fosters continuing commitment and contribution.
• Engaging in reflective practice. Spiritual practice doesn’t end with demonstrat¬ing fairness, caring, and appreciation to others. It also incorporates individual self-examination or communication with God. Meditation, prayer, journaling, and spiritual reading not only deepen spirituality; they also pay practical divi¬dends.28 Leaders who engage in such activities are more effective because they experience less stress, enjoy improved mental and physical health, and develop stronger relationships with others. They are better equipped to rebound from crises and see a greater (transcendent) meaning in even the most stressful cir¬cumstances. Self-reflective leaders also manage their emotions more effectively and exercise greater self-discipline.
Spiritual values help leaders create ethical organizational climates. Spiritual leaders develop a vision that helps organization members experience a sense of calling, the belief that life has meaning and makes a difference.29 This vision builds hope and faith in the future, which encourages group members to put forth their best efforts and to persevere. Spiritually focused leaders also establish a culture based on altruistic love that fosters a sense of membership and connection. (I’ll have more to say about altruism in Chapter 5.) Leaders and followers enjoy a sense of “ethical well-being” in which their behavior reflects their inner values. Members of such groups are more likely to be committed, productive, and socially responsible.
The path to individual and organizational spiritual transformation will have its ups and downs. After the initial excitement of discovering the bene¬fits of spirituality, individuals and organizations will typically hit obstacles—frustration, financial challenges, feelings of emptiness—that demand new spiritual practices and a renewed commitment to a greater purpose if growth is to continue.’ With this in mind, the following framework can be used for measuring the spiritual climate of a workplace.H You can use the following values or characteristics to determine your organization’s spiritual progress.
Benevolence: kindness toward others; desire to promote the happiness and prosperity of employees.
Generativity: long-term focus; concern about future consequences of actions for this and future generations.
Humanism: policies and practices that respect the dignity and worth of every employee; opportunity for personal growth when working toward organizational goals.
Integrity: adherence to a code of conduct; honesty; sincerity; candor.
Justice: even-handed treatment of employees; impartiality; unbiased rewards and punishments.
CHAPTER 4. Combating Evil 139
Mutuality: employees feel interconnected and mutually dependent; work together to complete projects and achieve goals.
Receptivity: flexible thinking; open-mindedness; take calculated risks; reward creativity.
Respect: treat employees with esteem and value; show consideration and concern.
Responsibility: members independently follow through on goals despite obstacles; are concerned with what is right.
Trust: members and outsiders have confidence in the character and truthfulness of the organization and its representatives.
To this point our focus has been on the positive benefits of spirituality. However, before ending our discussion of the topic, it should he noted that spiritual leadership has a potential dark side. Noting these pitfalls can keep us from falling victim to them as leaders or followers. To begin, some leaders view spirituality solely as a tool for increasing follower commitment (obedience) and productivity, losing sight of the fact that spirituality has value in and of itself, helping organizational members find meaning and establish connections. Other leaders try to impose their particular religious and spiritual views on followers. In the worst-case scenario, authoritarian leaders engage in spiritual abuse.” They use spirituality to reinforce their power, to seek selfish (often fraudulent) goals, and to foster dependency in followers. Spiritual abuse is a danger in business organizations as well as religious ones. Common abusive tactics include (1) overemphasizing spiritual authority and forbidding challenges from followers; (2) demanding unquestioning obedience as a sign of follower loyalty, which takes away the right of subordinates to make their own choices; (3) keeping members apart from outsiders and dismissing external critics while, at the same time, hiding character flaws and unethical practices from the public; (4) insisting on rigid beliefs and behavior while demanding conformity and perfection; (5) suppressing follower dissent through humiliation, deprivation, and other means; and (6) using nearly absolute power to engage in fraud, sexual immorality, and other unethical practices.
buglicasipms_and APP • I
• Evil takes a variety of forms or faces, including a sense of dreadful pleasure, deception, rational administration, sanctioned devaluation, a series of small but fateful decisions, and the product of situational forces that convert ordi¬nary people into evildoers. Whatever face it displays, evil is a destructive force that inflicts pain and suffering and ends in death.
140 PART II. Looking Inward
• Ultimately, the choice of whether to do or participate in evil is yours.
• Work to eliminate the situational factors—peer pressure, obedience to author¬ity, anonymity, and dehumanization—that turn leaders and followers into evildoers. Intervene to stop evil behavior.
• Forgiveness is one way to defuse or absorb evil. As a leader, you need to seri¬ously consider the role of forgiveness in your relations with followers, peers, supervisors, and outsiders.
• Forgiving does not mean forgetting or condoning evil. Instead, forgivers hold offenders accountable for their actions at the same time they offer mercy. Forgiving takes a conscious act of will, unfolds over time, and replaces hostil¬ity and resentment with empathy and compassion.
• Forgiveness breaks cycles of evil and restores relationships. However, you may gain the most from extending mercy. Forgiving can heighten your sense of wellbeing, give you renewed energy, and improve your health.
• Warring groups can overcome their mutual hatred by facing and judging the past, rejecting revenge in favor of restraint, feeling empathy for their enemies’ humanity, and being committed to restoring the broken relationship. As a leader, you may need to offer an apology for the offenses of your group in order to foster reconciliation.
• Spiritual resources can equip you for the demanding work of confronting evil by contributing to your character development.
• Common spiritual practices that can make you more effective and ethical as a leader include (1) demonstrating respect for others’ values, (2) treating others fairly, (3) expressing caring and concern, (4) listening responsively, (5) appre¬ciating the contributions of others, and (6) engaging in reflective practice.
• You can foster an ethical organizational climate by acting as a spiritual leader who creates a vision that helps members experience a sense of calling and establishes a culture based on altruistic love.
• Recognize that there is a potential dark side to spiritual leadership. Be careful not to use spirituality solely as a tool to boost productivity, to force your par-ticular beliefs onto followers, or to reinforce your power.
For Further Exploration, Challenge,
1. Which of the perspectives on evil described in the chapter is most useful to you? How does it help you better understand and prevent evil?
Develop your own definition of forgiveness. Does your definition set bound¬aries that limit when forgiveness can be offered? What right do leaders have to offer or accept forgiveness on behalf of the group?
3. Consider a time when you forgave someone who treated you unjustly. Did you move through the stages identified by Enright and his colleagues? What
CHAPTER 4. Combating Evil 141
benefits did you experience? Conversely, describe a time when you asked for and received forgiveness. What process did you go through? How did you and the relationship benefit?
4. Develop your own forgiveness case study based on the life of a leader who prevented or broke a cycle of evil through an act of apology, mercy, or reconciliation.
5. What should he the role of spirituality in leadership? Try to reach a consensus on this question in a group.
6. Define spiritual leadership. How does it differ from other forms of leader¬ship? How can abuse of spiritual leadership he prevented?
7. Evaluate the spiritual climate of an organization using the values presented on page 138. Share your findings with the rest of the class.
CASE STUDY 4.2
EVIL IN THE BASEMENT: THE ATTACK
ON COLUMBINE HIGH
On April 20, 1999, two teens dressed in trench coats and armed with bombs, shotguns, and semiautomatic rifles launched an assault on Columbine High School in suburban Denver, Colorado. For 48 minutes seniors Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold set off homemade pipe bombs and napalm while shooting at students and teachers. At the end of their killing spree, 14 students (including the shooters) and one faculty member were dead (23 others were seriously injured). The carnage could have been much worse. The killers wanted to inflict a higher death toll than the Oklahoma City bombing, but their most powerful explosive devices failed to detonate. In addition, they seemed to get bored with murder and killed themselves well before law enforcement officials entered the building.
Many other school attacks have occurred since the Columbine tragedy, but this event remains the most infamous. Other school shooters have adopted the dress and tactics of the Columbine killers and looked to them for inspiration. Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho, for example, mentioned Harris and Klebold twice in the manifesto he left after murdering 32 stu-dents and faculty. Further, the motives of Harris and Klebold are harder to explain. Unlike a number of other school shooters who could clearly be labeled as mentally ill (like Cho) or as social outcasts, the Columbine killers
(Continued)
142 PART II. Looking Inward
(Continued)
were highly intelligent, mainstream students from privileged backgrounds who had bright futures after graduation. The horrific acts of these adoles¬cents, who held part-time jobs, bowled regularly, and attended the prom, brought the reality of evil far too close to home.
Reporter and author David Cullen spent several years reconstructing what happened before, during, and after the killing spree. In his book Columbine, he describes the evolution of the Columbine shooters and how outward appearances can be deceiving. Drawing upon the tapes and jour¬nals of the teens and interviews with an FBI profiler, the author concludes that Eric Harris, the duo’s leader, was a psychopath who “just enjoyed being bad” (p. 240). He boasted of his superiority to the rest of the human race and demonstrated a total lack of empathy. He spewed forth hate on his website and on Internet chat rooms as well as in his private journal. For his part, Dylan Klebold struggled with depression and low self-worth, feeling cut off from humanity. Columbine for him was a form of murder—suicide. He took his own life after taking out his anger and self-loathing on others.
Harris and Klebold evolved into killers over time. Their criminal activities escalated from vandalism against those they particularly detested, to com¬puter hacking, to breaking in to school lockers and a vehicle, to making and setting off pipe bombs, to the final assault. While they hinted at their plans to friends and on websites, their skill at deceiving school officials, law enforcement authorities, and their parents ultimately kept them from being
stopped. Like other psychopaths, Eric was a rr-727t?- of decaptior c.-cr.
fessed just enough of his crimes to appear sincere. For example, he admit¬ted to his parents that he had been drinking a few times but hid the fact that he often got drunk and used pot. For his part, Dylan Klebold kept his despair to himself. His parents didn’t discover the depth of his pain until after he was dead.
The duo’s behavior after being arrested for stealing equipment from a van illustrates their success in fooling adults. When faced with a felony conviction, they managed to convince a judge to approve them for a diver¬sion program instead. They made a very positive impression on the magis¬trate by dressing up, acting well behaved, and treating him with respect. The judge thought they were going to do well in the program. After the murders, he would admit that he had been misled. “What’s mind-boggling is the amount of deception,” the judge noted. “The ease of their deception. The coolness of their deception” (p. 220). Harris, in particular, manipulated the counselors in the diversion program. He was humorous and clever, kept
CHAFFER 4. Combating Evil 143
his grades and work performance up, and pretended to have concern for the victim of his crime. As a result, he was released early, which is achieved by only 50/0 of those enrolled in the program. All the while Eric recorded his contempt for the legal system, his counselors, the van owner, and human-kind in his personal notebook. He took a great deal of pleasure in conning his parents and the authorities.
Despite the duo’s efforts to hide their plans, authorities came agoniz-ingly close to preventing the massacre, according to author Cullen. Parents of a former friend of Harris and Klebold complained repeatedly about the threats they made against their son. The Jefferson County sheriff’s office investigated, copied Eric’s webpages, and found evidence that he was mak-ing pipe bombs. The investigator on the case drafted an affidavit for a search warrant for the Harris residence 13 months before the attack, but the affidavit was never presented to a judge. (After the assault, sheriff’s officials would also engage in deception by denying that they had ever investigated the complaints or drafted an affidavit.)
The Harrises missed several opportunities to prevent the assault as well. They believed Eric’s lies. When his father discovered evidence that he was making pipe bombs, Eric promised to stop and did a better job of hiding his activities from that point on. (Police did discover bomb-making materials in the Harris home after the attack.) As the day for carrying out the plot grew near, Eric and Dylan created the “Basement Tapes” while the Harris family slept upstairs. On the tapes the killers vented their rage, insulted those they considered inferior (Blacks, Latinos, women, gays), identified victims they were going to shoot, and offered apologies (but then excused their behav-ior). They also described how they were going to die in the final battle they called NBK after the movie Natural Born Killers. Tragically, the Harrises never awoke to discover the evil festering in their suburban basement.
Discussion Probes
1. What, if anything, do you remember about the Columbine attack? Why do you think it has inspired other school shooters?
2. What forms of evil do you see reflected in the Columbine murders?
3. What steps could parents and authorities have taken to prevent Harris and Klebold from evolving into killers?
4. How do we keep from being deceived by evildoers?
(Continued)
144 PART II. Looking Inward
(Continued)
5. Should Harris and Klebold be forgiven for their assault on Columbine High School? Should their parents be forgiven for not stopping the attack?
6. What leadership ethics lessons do you take from this case?
SOURCE: Cullen, D. (2009). Columbine. New York: Twelve.
CASE STUDY 4.3
FORGIVING DR. MENGELE?
Russian soldiers liberated Poland’s Auschwitz-Birkenau German concentra-tion camp in January 1945. A film clip of the event shows two little girls holding hands leading a line of survivors out through the barbed wire. The girls, Eva and Miriam Mozes, were identical twins from Romania. Their par-ents and two older siblings went to the gas chambers immediately upon arrival at the camp in May 1944. Eva and Miriam were kept alive to serve as subjects for the genetic experiments of Dr. Josef Mengele. The Mozes sisters were one set of approximately 1,400 pairs of twins who were forced to endure a variety of deadly tests, including being subjected to extreme cold and receiving injections of poison and bacteria. The shots that Miriam received prevented her kidneys from growing. Eva was infected with a virus or bacteria that kept her near death for weeks. If either had died, Mengele would have immediately murdered the other twin and performed simulta-neous autopsies. Eva’s strong determination to survive kept her alive and helped save her sister’s life as well.
Following the war both Eva and Miriam immigrated to Israel. Eva married an American (Michael Kor) and then moved to Terre Haute, Indiana, where she became a real estate agent, founded the CANDLES (Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiment Survivors) Holocaust Museum, and began speak¬ing to student groups about her experiences. In 1993 Miriam died, perhaps as a result of the injections she received at Auschwitz. Eva set out to track down Mengele’s medical records to find out the dangers she and other twin survivors faced. Though she never located the records, she met Dr. Hans Munch during her search. Munch was a doctor at Auschwitz who was later acquitted of war crimes. As a result of their meeting, Eva wrote a letter of
CHAPTER 4. Combating Evil 14S
forgiveness to Munch. In 1995, during the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, Munch signed a letter testifying to the horrors of the camp, and Eva issued a declaration of amnesty and forgiveness to Mengele and to all Nazis. Eva also began to incorporate her message of forgiveness into her presentations.
Eva Mozes Kor’s declaration of forgiveness alienated her from most of her fellow twin survivors and generated criticism from Jewish thE.’lviians and Holocaust experts, much of it captured in the documentary Forgiving Dr. Mengele, the story of Eva’s life and controversial decision to forgive her tormentors. Her critics argue that no forgiveness can be offered unless the Nazi perpetrators ask for it first, that forgiveness means forgetting the hor¬ror that was the Holocaust, and that forgiveness cannot be offered on behalf of other Holocaust victims. In response, Eva points to forgiveness as one of the paths to healing. Forgiving means she is no longer a helpless victim but has power over her victimizers. Now she can live without dwelling on the hurt of the past. “I felt as though an incredibly heavy weight of suf-fering had been lifted,” she told an interviewer. “I never thought I could be so strong.”‘ As for the charge that she is helping to erase the memory of the Holocaust, she points to her museum and speaking engagements as evi¬dence that she is keeping this history alive. Forgiving does not mean forget¬ting. According to Eva, “What the victims do does not change what happened.”‘
Do you agree with Eva Moses Kor’s decision to forgive Dr. Mengele and the Nazis? Why or why not?
Notes
1. Heflick, R. (2005, December 9). Forgiving Josef Mengele. Der Spiegel.
2. Heflick.
Sources
Hercules, B. (Producer), & Pugh, C. (Producer). (2005). Forgiving Dr. Mengele [Documentary film]. (Available from First Run Features, The Film Center Building, 630 Ninth Ave., Suite 1213, NewYork, NY 10036, or from firstrunfeatures .com)
Mozes Kor, E., & Wright, M. (1995). Echoes from Auschwitz. Dr. Mengele’s twins. The story of Eva and Miriam Moses. Terre Haute, IN: CANDLES, Inc.
Stevens, D. (2006, May 18). Forgiving Dr. Mengele. Letting go of the death camps in “Forgiving Dr. Mengele.” The New York Times, p. E5.
146 PART II. Looking Inward
1. Definitions of evil can be found in the following sources. Of course, a host of other definitions are offered by major religions and philosophical systems.
Hallie, P. (1997). Tales of good and evil, help and harm. New York: HarperCollins.
Katz, E E. (1993). Ordinary people and extraordinary evil: A report on the beguilings of evil. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Kekes, J. (2005). The roots of evil. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Peck, M. S. (1983). People of the lie: The hope for healing human evil. New York: Touchstone.
Sanford, N., & Comstock, C. (Eds.). (1971). Sanctions for evil. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vetelson, A. J. (2005). Evil and human agency: understanding collective evildoing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2. Alford, C. E (1997). What evil means to us. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, p. 3.
3. Kekes.
4. Peck.
5. Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (1998). Unmasking administrative evil. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Sanford & Comstock. For a closer look at the role of sanctions in genocide, see Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7. Lewis, C. S. (1946). The great divorce. New York: Macmillan.
8. Fromm, E. (1964). The heart of man: Its genius for good and evil. New York: Harper & Row, p. 136.
9. Arendt, H. (1964). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. New York: Viking.
10. Hatzfeld, J. (2005). Machete season: The killers in Rwanda speak (L. Coverdale, Trans.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
11. Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House; Zimbardo, P. G. (2005). A situationist per-spective on the psychology of evil. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 21-50). New York: Guilford. See also Waller, J. (2007). Becoming evil: How ordinary people commit genocide and mass killing (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12. Morrow, L. (2003). Evil: An investigation. New York: Basic Books.
13. See the following:
Murphy, J. G. (2003). Getting even: Forgiveness and its limits. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ransley, C., & Spy, T. (Eds.). (2004). Forgiveness and the healing process: A central therapeutic concern. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
CHAPTER 4. Combating Evil 147
14. Material on the definition and psychology of forgiveness is taken from the following:
Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of inter-personal forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring for-giveness (pp. 46-62). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Enright, R. D., & Gassin, E. A. (1992). Forgiveness: A developmental view. Journal of Moral Education, 21, 99-114.
Freedman, S., Enright, R. D., & Knutson, J. (2005). A progress report on the process model of forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 393-406). New York: Routledge.
McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000). The psy-chology of forgiveness: History, conceptual issues, and overview. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1-14). New York: Guilford.
Thomas, G. (2000, January 10). The forgiveness factor. Christianity Today, pp. 38-43.
15. Enright et al.
16. For information on the by-products of forgiveness, see the following:
Casarjian, R. (1992). Forgiveness: A bold choice for a peaceful heart. New York: Bantam.
Enright et al.
Freedman et al.
McCullough, M. E., Sandage, S. J., & Worthington, E. L. (1997). To forgive is human: How to put your past in the past. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Thoresen, C. E., Harris, H. S., & Luskin, F. (2000). Forgiveness and health: An unanswered question. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research and practice (pp. 254-280). New York: Guilford.
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2005). Initial questions about the art and science of forgiving. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 1-13). New York: Routledge.
Waltman, M. A., Russell, D. C., Coyle, C. T., Enright, R. D., Holter, A. C., & Swoboda, C. M. (2009). The effects of a forgiveness intervention on patients with coronary artery disease. Psychology and Health, 24(1), 11-27.
17. Lowenheim, N. (2009). A haunted past: Requesting forgiveness for wrong-doing in international relations. Review of International Studies, 35, 531-555; Shriver, D. W. (2001). Forgiveness: A bridge across Abysses of revenge. In R. G. Helmick & R. L. Peterson (Eds.), Forgiveness and reconciliation: Religion, public policy, & conflict transformation (pp. 151-167). Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press; Griswold, C. L. (2007). Forgiveness: A philosophical exploration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
148 PART U. Looking Inward
18. Shriver, D. W. (1995). An ethic for enemies: Forgiveness in politics. New York: Oxford University Press. See also:
Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal conflict (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Ch. 1.
19. Shrive; p. 8.
20. Oswick, C. (2009). Burgeoning workplace spirituality? A textual analysis of momentum and directions. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 6, 15-25.
21. King, S., Biberman, J., Robbins, L., & Nicol, D. M. (2007). Integrating spiri¬tuality into management education in academia and organizations: Origins, a concep
tual framework, and current practices. In J. Biberman & M. D. Whitty (Eds.), At
work: Spirituality matters (pp. 243-256). Scranton, PA: University of Scranton Press.
22. Information on the benefits of workp’,-, e :ualit, isotakisn from the
following:
Craigie, F. C. (1999). The spirit and work: Observations about spirituality and organizational life. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 18, 43-53.
Fairholm, G. W. (1996). Spiritual leadership: Fulfilling whole-self needs at
work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(5), 11-17. Garcia-Zamor, J. C. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational per
formance. Public Administration Review, 63,355-363.
Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Right from wrong: The influ¬ence of spirituality on perceptions of unethical business activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 85-97.
Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Toward a science of work¬place spirituality. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 3-28). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A values framework for mea¬suring the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational perfor¬mance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 129-142.
Mirvis, P. H. (1997). “Soul work” in organizations. Organization Science, 8, 193-206.
Rego, A., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2008). Workplace spirituality and organiza¬tional commitment: An empirical study. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(1), 53-75.
23. Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualiza¬tion and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9,134-145, p. 137; see also Duchon, D., & Plowman, D. A. (2005). Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on work unit performance. The Leadership Quarterly, /6,807-833.
24. Pollard, C. W. (1996). The soul of the firm. Grand Rapids, MI: HarperBusiness.
25. See Zinnbauer, B. J., & Pargament, K. I. (2005). Religiousness and spiritual¬ity. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 21-42). New York: Guilford.
CHAPTER 4. Combating Evil 149
26. See Judge, W Q. (1999). The leader’s shadow: Exploring and developing executive character. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effec¬tiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655-687.
28. One detailed list of personal and collective spiritual practices can be found in Foster, R. J. (1978). Celebration of discipline: The path to spiritual growth. New York: Harper & Row.
29. Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693-727; Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army transformation: Theory, measurement, and establishing a base¬line. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 835-862; Fry, L. W. (2005). Toward a theory of ethical and spiritual well-being, and corporate social responsibility through spiritual leadership. In R. A. Giacalone, C. L. Jurkiewicz, & C. Dunn (Eds.), Positive psy¬chology in business ethics and corporate responsibility (pp. 47-84). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
30. Benefiel, M. (2005). Soul at work: Spiritual leadership in organizations. New York: Seabury Books; Benefiel, M. (2005). The second half of the journey: Spiritual leadership for organizational transformation. The Leadership Quarterly, 16,723-747.
31. Jurkiewicz & Giacalone.
32. Boje, D. (2008). Critical theory approaches to spirituality in business. In J. Biberman & L. Tischler (Eds.), Spirituality in business: Theory, practice, and future directions (pp. 160-187). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Click Here To Get More On This Paper!!!!