Sporting Integrity
SPORTING INTEGRITY
Business and sport parallels - do the ends justify the means??
Is an additional gain worth risking the pain of impaired trust and damaged reputation?
Which is more important - short term or long term?
The 2018 Champions League Final featured Real Madrid defender Sergio Ramos elbowing his opponent's goalkeeper, with US doctors specialising in head injury in American football subsequently believing the "blow to the head from Ramos" resulted in concussion or "visual spatial dysfunction", which later dramatically changed the course of the final.
Also in "the game" Ramos locked arms with Liverpool's key forward Mo Salah, utilising a move banned in judo.
Salah's fall to the ground and subsequent shoulder injury meant his missing not only the rest of the match but not playing anything remotely close to his best in the subsequent World Cup for his country, Egypt, still hampered by his shoulder injury. It also changed the momentum of the Champions League (formerly the European Cup) final, the pinnacle or showcase of football or soccer across Europe.
Head and shoulder injuries are far more common in contact sports such as Rugby, Aussie Rules and American football, than FOOT-ball, where "tackles" are supposed to be predominantly using legs and feet, not one player locking arms with another and throwing the opponent to the ground
Head and shoulder impact injuries (as opposed to those from long-term heading of the ball) are so rare in "soccer", that both transpiring in the one match and caused by the same player, who later in the game again did what he is also well known for - and too many other players too - readily falling over and holding parts of the body not impacted - designed to have opponents yellow carded and sent off, is not the example that senior players in big games should be setting for the next generation of players and fans - as in business, the wrong "Tone at the Top".
Yet the propensity of some players to engage in such antics were well known before the Champions League final, indeed are more prevalent in some nation's leagues than others and detract from the enjoyment of watching.
Isn't it odd that "soccer" players can fall or dive arising from little or no contact, yet those playing much more physical sports do not?
Maybe the penalty for such "soccer" players who fall over arising from little or no contact (coincidentally generally in their opponent's penalty area, but not centre circle) should be having to train with teams from the more physical "football" sports for a week, especially rugby, Aussie Rules and American football, where the incentive is to stay on your feet and keep possession of the ball for your team? How long would they last?
In other more direct contact sports, when key players are targeted by opponents, they usually receive the protection of the match officials. Those sports which have been slow to introduce live video refereeing and retrospective action against those who seek to target or injure opponents have much to learn from the likes of Aussie Rules football and Rugby football.
Oscar Wilde wrote
"to lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."
What about losing or damaging two key opponents during what is supposed to be a "sporting" encounter?
A careless, spontaneous, impulsive act
"in the moment"? :-)
Or calculated and premeditated? What is called in some sports:
"getting your retaliation in first"??
Abraham Lincoln said
"you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
This is most certainly the case with the number of cameras televising modern sport, even before the advent of Video Assisted Refereeing.
In 2003 I was organising my first Business Ethics Conference, and that of my profession, Chartered Accountants Ireland, at a time when I sat on their Ethics Committee. I was looking forward to welcoming two respected Business School professors from the USA to our event at the Guinness Storehouse in Dublin.
Preparations were going fine - until they asked me to be the third speaker - directly addressing the topic of "Building Integrity in Business." Oops! Where do I start?
A week or two later I was still pondering that while having breakfast with a friend who had played junior tennis for Ireland, had also been in KPMG with me and was now working in industry as CEO of a business.
I will never forget the response when I sought his advice:
"Julian, when I now meet the people in business, who cheated against me in junior tennis, I still don't trust them"!
This led me to ponder the critical role of trust and in due course write an article discussing it's critical role in all relationships, not least business, and how unwise it is to risk damaging it:
"Would you do business with someone you don’t trust? Most wouldn’t.?
Yet although trust is fundamental to building long term relationships, it may not be the primary driver in evaluating and making business and other decisions.
Many of these decisions appear to be taken without fully assessing the likely impact on relationships with employees, customers, suppliers, investors, local communities and other ‘stakeholders’ – the very people who contribute to an organisation’s reputation...
Trust is at the core of all good relationships – business and personal. It is the glue that holds the relationship together, particularly when times are difficult."
Clarke, Julian. Trust, Reputation, Integrity & Professionalism
Accountancy Ireland, February 2007
Trust is a critical factor across all areas of society if relationships are to be built and maintained.
Is the footballer with a propensity for falling over theatrically in the opponents penalty with contact akin to being blown by a feather going to be awarded a penalty at a key time in a key match when he genuinely is badly tripped by an opponent?
Might 'crying wolf" or "crying foul' ultimately be to the detriment of that player's team, especially when some of the players make it look like they were hit by a steamroller following quite minimal contact?
Do they consider when seeking an unfair advantage that this may actually disadvantage them when seen as persistent in the eyes of the referee, who does not like being fooled or cheated any more than anyone else?
The smarter players - and managers - play fairly and don't take dives in the penalty area or roll around theatrically before a near miraculous recovery mere moments later - knowing that the ref is more likely to award a foul against their player when they actually are fouled.
This suggests that the CONSEQUENCES of the actions are evaluated both in advance in terms of a "strategy" to behave fairly (or unfairly). Indeed the PERSONALITY of both manager and player(s) can seem to play a role in which route they decide to take, no different than the business which becomes known for its honest or dishonest approach to trade.
"The foundation for poor “business ethics” is likely to be doubtful “personal ethics”.
A common denominator in reading about disgraced high profile “entrepreneurs” seems to be that they appear to have had little or no scruples.
It is difficult to trust someone’s commitment to ethics in business if one has reservations about their personal integrity."
Clarke, Julian; "Ethical Hypotheticals"
Accountancy Ireland, April 1998
It should not be a surprise when a player who had a high-profile opponent sent off during a World Cup match from playacting, now manages a team well known for such tactics and a culture that "everyone is out to get us". But how many "neutrals" are likely to support their team? By and large people want to see fast, free-flowing attacking football, and sport, not dour defensive sport designed more to stop their opponents playing - with a strategy of "anything goes" in terms of both antics and scruples - than actually striving to play creatively themselves.
Some managers have a long term vision for the team or business and avoid a "fast buck" approach which may risk damaging trust, while others seek the "quick win" and don't care if they never do business with that person or firm ever again, or do not recommend them either:
"Few engage in business not caring whether people trust them or not. Yet when an opportunity to take unfair advantage of another arises, it is often grasped.
Businesses rarely survive on one-off situations. Many require not only a regular trading pattern with customers and suppliers, but also thrive on referrals from the satisfied.
The best decisions are taken when a ‘win-win’ outcome results; otherwise the gain to one party will not only be at the expense of the other in that situation, but may also preclude any further opportunities. Short term gain may well be at the expense of any longer term relationship.
Should trust break down between two parties, it is likely the dissatisfied party will spread the word, with a detrimental effect on the reputation of the supposed ‘winner’ of the original transaction.
Firms and indeed entire industries can suffer a loss of reputation when the acts of some of their individuals are found out, leading to a breakdown in trust."
Clarke, Julian. "Trust, Reputation, Integrity & Professionalism"
Accountancy Ireland, February 2007
What is it though about those people who persistently seem to behave impulsively and do not seem to spend much time considering the consequences of their actions?
Nearly 20 years after posing my tennis playing friend the question and following a decade of studying various branches of psychology, as well as neuroeconomics and neuroscience, there does seem to be one grouping in society who behaves without scruples, impulsively, inconsiderate of trust and reputation?
What is it about those for whom integrity does not appear to be on the agenda, especially when an opportunity to either "personally prevail" or "collectively win" over someone else or a rival firm arises?
Why do they seem to have to
"win at all costs"
without sufficiently evaluating the array of potential consequences, even should these transpire to do more harm than good to (a) the relationship, (b) the decision maker and (c) the entity which appeared to have dismissed integrity and trust as being unimportant?
Researching for almost a decade an area I believe to be one of the world's best kept secrets - Personality Disorders - in particular as they impact on the behaviour of both business and societal leaders, would appear to provide many of the answers I was seeking myself for much of my own career.
I NOW know but didn't then that:
"The psychopath’s unreliability and his disregard for obligations and for consequences are manifested in both trivial and serious matters, are masked by demonstrations of conforming behaviour, and cannot be accounted for by ordinary motives or incentives."
(Cleckley, The Mask of Sanity p342)
This may be one explanation why for some business leaders, sportspeople and others throughout society, risking damaging trust does not seem to deter them from behaving irresponsibly or inappropriately, nor considering all the consequences of their actions before they act, often impulsively.
Indeed it is well known that the consequences for they themselves can transpire to be even more disastrous than those they sought to prevail over, but this wan't even on their radar when their extraordinary impulsivity led them to try to:
"get their own way"
and "win at all costs"
irrespective of the consequences, especially if this involves
"doing the opposite of what others wanted"
given they can be extraordinarily contrary and perverse.
Yet too many engage in actions of dubious integrity not expecting they will be "found out", or what the consequences may be if they are, forced to show their hand and either:
"own up or cover up"
one of which may even improve reputation and the other finish it off completely.
This can be particularly so if in due course instead of apologising to those affected and making some form of reparation, they instead choose to make excuses and fail to appreciate that when they try to
"justify the unjustifiable" and
"deny the undeniable"
or worse
"attack their accuser"
they compound the damage they have already done to their personal image and the reputation of the entity they mis-lead and fail to represent in the manner expected by neither apologising nor showing remorse for their actions.?
This is another unfortunate parallel with business, or rather the worst of business, as such behaviour is thankfully not the norm.
Just as many sporting matches are exactly that - sporting - most transactions undertaken in business are conducted fairly and amicably, with a view to forging and maintaining rather than damaging relationships.
People are not just judged in many walks of life by their behaviour, but also by what it says about their character. Indeed Salah perhaps displayed his better character by being more conciliatory than Ramos, and refusing to speak badly of the player who behaved unscrupulously, unlike "Disordered Leaders"
holding no "grudges"
against the player whose "anything goes" attitude considerably altered the progress of the game.
In stark contrast, Ramos refused to apologise for his behaviour.
Maybe he couldn't? How many consider that:
"Lack of guilt and remorse"
is a characteristic displayed by some of the less admirable business people, no matter the industry, those for whom "winning at all costs" is more important than establishing and maintaining "Trust, Reputation, Integrity and Professionalism (TRIP)?"
One player's reputation was enhanced, the other's further damaged.
Some years later we are not talking about the skills of the players or goals which won the match, or even which team emerged victorious, rather the means that the captain of one team believed justifiable to increase the likelihood of "success".
With some describing 'integrity" as
"doing the right thing with no-one looking"
what might "doing the wrong thing with millions looking" describe?
There is no doubt that there are those in society for whom wrongdoing doesn't "cost them a bother", so given that they are:
"a class of individuals found in every race, culture, society and walk of life"
(RD Hare, Without Conscience)
and they manage to mask their true tendencies much of the time, they can be identified especially, not only by their behaviour but impact:
"Not surprisingly, many psychopaths are criminals, but many others remain out of prison, using their charm and chameleon-like abilities to cut a wide swath through society and leaving a wake of ruined lives behind them"
(RD Hare, Without Conscience)
So it seems that irrespective of who they are and what their role may be, from business to government and politics, from sport to the arts and from education to religion, within family groupings and local committees, indeed those holding many trusted roles throughout all areas of global society:
"there must be something wrong
with those lacking a sense of what may be wrong"
(Clarke, Disordered Leadership)
Why might this be?
How many consider that some "fearless" leaders - or defenders:
may not actually experience
"fear or anxiety"
in the way most do? Did anyone consider that when such people - "Disordered Leaders" - (mis) lead financial institutions, they may be unable to evaluate the "risk-reward" trade off, that critically balances the quest for higher earnings today with the risk of liabilities tomorrow so great they may threaten the long term future of the entity?
"Psychopaths lack the physiological responses normally associated with fear. The significance of this finding is that, for most people, the fear produced by threats of pain or punishment is an unpleasant emotion and a powerful motivator of behaviour. Fear keeps us from doing some things… Not so with psychopaths, they merrily plunge on, perhaps knowing what might happen, but not really caring."
(RD Hare, Without Conscience)
Which is preferable? Short-term gain at the expense of longer term pain (extra revenues or earnings from dubious practices, irresponsibly risking breached trust and damaged reputation)?
Or short term pain at the expense of longer term gain (some earnings foregone by refusing to engage in tactics associated with "low-to-no-integrity", sensibly and responsibly protecting the critical qualities of trust and reputation?
Perhaps Socrates was right to liken a "good name" to a fire roaring away in a fireplace - far easier to gradually and wisely keep kindled, but potentially difficult to relight if foolishly allowed to be extinguished?
With some sportspeople being "sent off" or "red-carded" far more frequently than others, how many consider that an "inability to learn from prior experiences" is another cognitive trait of not only unscrupulous athletes - but also "Disordered Leaders"?
Hence "Groundhog Day' can be every day for their unfortunate teammates or managerial colleagues when having to constantly deal with those self-centred individuals who believe they "know it all" and keep repeating the same mistakes, time and time again, given their
"inability to learn by experience to make a better adjustment and avoid serious trouble that can be readily foreseen."
(Cleckley, The Mask of Sanity p173)
Do the ends justify the means?
This was a question we asked 12 months before the 2018 Champions League Final when penning some thoughts on integrity in sport and parallels with other areas of life, including business.
How important is "trust" in sport and are "role models" more important in sport than elsewhere throughout business and wider society?
While some know where to draw the line and prefer to let their players do the talking, remaining low key and modest no matter how significant their achievements, other people can believe that any advantage, no matter how minor, justifies behaviour which others would find inappropriate or objectionable and couldn't even contemplate. In their mind, the end justifies the means.?
When such people are responsible for sporting teams, their penchant for self-promotion, controversy, being critical of their players in public and playing mind-games with opponents, referees and officials, rather than confining their comments to the performance of their own team, they can not only damage the reputation of their own team, especially in the eyes of "neutrals", diminish team-spirit, demotivate some players and “bring the game into disrepute”.... but also inspire the opposition they have criticised to better perform.
None of which deter some from repeating their actions, time and time again.
Why might this be?
"Winning at all costs"
and achieving their goals
"irrespective of the consequences"
are other trait associated with "Disordered Leaders") can be as inappropriate in sport as elsewhere in society. The ends do not always justify the means, even if less scrupulous and more adversarial sportspeople believe it does.
The methods they deploy can diminish their achievements.?
It is critically important that others involved with whatever the situation may be recognise that some such adults may actually be emotional five year olds, primarily concerned with “getting their own way”, like some children not wanting to share their toys.
Such a recognition may help others decide how best to respond to their sometimes apparently immature, childlike or infantile nature.
While this may be a surprise for many, it will not be for psychiatrists, psychologists and sociologists with expertise in the fascinating field of Personality Disorders. treatment sessions, but their lack of inhibition and self-control allied to their necessity to win and personally prevail in many situations, trivial and significant, means there doesn’t appear to be anything which prohibits them from impulsively doing what they want to do when the opportunity arises.
For instance, William and Joan McCord observed in 1964 that psychopaths can be:
“Like an infant, absorbed in his own needs, vehemently demanding satiation.”
(McCord & McCord, 1964)
Emeritus professor of psychology Robert D Hare confirmed this observation in 1993:
“At an early age most children have already begun to postpone pleasure, compromising with restrictions in the environment. A parent can generally use a promise to put off satisfying a two-year-old’s desires, at least temporarily, but [some] never seem to learn this lesson – they do not modify their desires; they ignore the needs of others.”
(RD Hare, Without Conscience)
One major challenge facing not only business but also society is to IDENTIFY the truer traits of such extraordinarily self-centred and perhaps childlike and infantile people and DENY them positions involving influence or power or, better still, do not employ them in the first place, no matter how considerable their other talents, including apparent Charisma and Eloquence, and how suitable they may otherwise appear.
Everybody has met these people, been deceived and manipulated by them, and forced to live with or repair the damage they have wrought. These often charming – but always deadly – individuals have a clinical name: psychopaths.
Their hallmark is a stunning lack of conscience; their game is self gratification at the other person’s expense. Many spend time in prison, but many do not. All take far more than they give…
(RD Hare, Without Conscience)
One major challenge facing not only business but also society is to IDENTIFY the truer traits of such extraordinarily self-centred and perhaps childlike and infantile people and DENY them positions involving influence or power or, better still, do not employ them in the first place, no matter how considerable their other talents, including apparent Charisma and Eloquence, and how suitable they may otherwise appear.
Together, these pieces of the puzzle form an image of a self-centred, callous and remorseless person profoundly lacking in empathy and the ability to form warm emotional relationships with others, a person who functions without the restraints of conscience.
If you think about it, you will realise that what is missing in this picture are the very qualities that allow human beings to live in social harmony.
(RD Hare, Without Conscience)
Which makes it all the more important that such people are kept as far away from positions with responsibility for other people as possible.
The Irish or gaelic expression
“mé féin” or “me myself”
is not that which should be associated with leaders.
Indeed so many of the world’s problems, little and large, local and international, could so readily be prevented, or constructively solved, if collectively we better appreciated how to choose the right people, with the right intentions and the most appropriate personality for the responsible roles we trust them with, not those narcissistic leaders who psychologists categorise as:
"consistently irresponsible"
Are modest leaders likely to ask
“Do you not know know who I am?”
They manage to talk and charm their way into positions associated with trustworthiness, yet may well be the most deceitful people in global society, as observed by the pioneer of modern psychopathy, practicing psychiatrist Prof Hervey Cleckley, in The Mask of Sanity :
The psychopath shows a remarkable disregard for truth and is to be trusted no more in his accounts of the past than in his promises for the future or his statement of present intentions. (p341)
He gives the impression that he is incapable of ever attaining realistic comprehension of an attitude in other people which causes them to value truth and cherish truthfulness in themselves. (p342)
Typically he is at ease and unpretentious in making a serious promise or in (falsely) exculpating himself from accusations, whether grave or trivial. His simplest statement in such matters carries special powers of conviction. Overemphasis, obvious glibness, and other traditional signs of the clever liar do not usually show in his words or in his manner. Whether there is reasonable chance for him to get away with the fraud or whether certain and easily foreseen detection is at hand, he is apparently unperturbed and does the same impressive job. (p342)
Candour and trustworthiness seem implicit in him at such times. During the most solemn perjuries he has no difficulty at all in looking anyone tranquilly in the eyes. (p342)
It is indeed difficult to express how thoroughly straightforward some typical psychopaths can appear. They are disarming not only to those unfamiliar with such patients but often to people who know well from experience their convincing outer aspect of honesty. (p342)
After being caught in shameful and gross falsehoods, after repeatedly violating his most earnest pledges, he finds it easy, when another occasion arises, to speak of his word of honour, his honour as a gentleman, and he shows surprise and vexation when commitments on such a basis do not immediately settle the issue. The conception of living up to his word seems, in fact, to be regarded as little more than a phrase sometimes useful to avoid unpleasantness or to gain other ends. (p342)
领英推荐
(Cleckley, The Mask of Sanity p342)
The devastating role this sub-group of society has played throughout the history of humanity may suggest that they are not just the most convincing liars ever born but also, being the most inhumane, perhaps the most dangerous, responsible not just for conflicts between tribes and then nations, but then in due course collapsed businesses and damaged interpersonal relationships no matter the walk of life.
It is because they appear normal on the outside, often smart and charismatic that they can achieve positions of responsibility for which they could not be more inappropriate, given that their suave exterior hides a deep inner coldness, an inability to experience genuine, warm, emotions or even to experience other people in their humanity.
We should never be surprised when their deep abnormality results in they behaving in a cruel manner towards other, something which their inhumanity permits them to derive pleasure from.
Given that they can be at their happiest making others unhappy and seek to disturb the happiness of others, both overtly and covertly, there are many ways others can IDENTIFY them and then ADAPT their own behaviour to diminish the deep harm they are well capable of.
Yet we continue to hire, promote, select and elect such abnormal people to positions of significant responsibility, which their
"consistent irresponsibility"
should disqualify them from even consideration for.
The American Psychological Association define NORMALITY as
“A broad concept that is roughly the equivalent of mental health. Although there are no absolutes and there is considerable cultural variation, some flexible psychological and behavioural criteria can be suggested:
1. freedom from incapacitating internal conflicts;
2. the capacity to think and act in an organised and reasonably effective manner;
3. the ability to cope with the ordinary demands and problems of life;
4. freedom from extreme emotional distress, such as anxiety, despondency and persistent upset; and
5. the absence of clear-cut symptoms of mental disorder, such as obsessions, phobias, confusion and disorientation.”
At the end of the day, it isn’t all about them, although they persist in believing that it is, often appearing to be unaware of their inadequacies and immune to the real damage they do, given the opportunity.
The world would also “be a better place” if we better learned how to AVOID the most irresponsible, untrustworthy and destructive people possible, with entirely predictable and inevitable consequences, not their concern or responsibility, as they always find someone or something else, or both, to blame, criticise, disparage and diminish, without remorse, as they deny the undeniable and defend the indefensible.
“Self-centred” has been defined by Merriam-Webster as
“concerned solely with one’s own desires, needs, or interests” and “independent of outside force or influence”.
“Narcissistic Personality” is described as
“a pattern of traits and behaviours characterised by excessive self-concern and overvaluation of the self.”
Do these describe characteristics that those appointing others to managerial and especially leadership roles would advocate and actively seek?
Yet far too many leaders, managers, team-leaders and supervisors as well as those with similar titles with responsibility for the lives and emotions of people in all types of organisations worldwide DO display these characteristics, which in some sectors and nations are actually applauded.
While many people can behave in a selfish, difficult, proud and contrary manner occasionally, especially under extreme pressure, to be classified as a “Personality Disorder” the traits need to be “inflexible”, meaning can be repeatedly observed without regards to time, place or circumstance, while also interfering with a person’s ability to function well in society, including causing problems with interpersonal relationships, termed by psychiatrists and psychologists as “functional impairment”.
The four core features common to all Personality Disorders, with two required for diagnosis, are:
1. Distorted thinking patterns,
2. Problematic emotional responses,
3. Over- or under-regulated impulse control and
4. Interpersonal difficulties,
none of which are attributes which society needs in those with responsibility for its institutions and their people, allied to their inability to see anything wrong with themselves and tendency to blame anything and everyone else for their failings and the many problems they create, for which they accept no responsibility.
Yet far too frequently some or all of these are evident in the behaviour of leaders, erroneously associated with strength of character and leadership, rather than weakness of personality and an inability to manage their own emotions, let alone lead other people.
One of the definitions of a “Personality Disorder” is
“Pervasive patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and the self that interfere with long-term functioning of the individual and are not limited to isolated episodes.”1
Those with “shallow emotions” who experience other people no differently than inanimate objects – such as shopfront mannequins – can perceive or misconceive many areas of organisational and national life being like a “game”, including business, politics and government.
It is all about the conquest, winning and possession of what they desire, being better and having more than those they see to be a rival (who frequently are not), with other far more important factors not nearly as relevant as they should be in their perception and deliberations.
Three of the most basic “tell-tale signs” include the following three quite basic and identifiable primary motivational factors, which I refers to as the “Triad of the Dark Triad”, although this behaviour when consistent rather than occasional is insufficiently appreciated as potentially being indicative of a “Personality Disorder”:
as this triad of factors become more critical for the disordered than in the minds of most other, more balanced, responsible and indeed “normal” people.
Indeed, their grandiosity and lack of insight into their impact on others incited Gabbard to suggest the label
“oblivious narcissists”
(Gabbard, 1989)
to describe their social presentation and distinguish them from their more "vulnerable" counterparts.
In October 2019 I proposed the following definition of a “Disordered Leader” for consideration and refinement at the US International Vincentian Business Ethics Conference or IVBEC:
“Someone trusted with supervisory, managerial or leadership responsibilities who, due to what may be indicative of a mental and/or personality disorder(s), could be considered to be incapable of consistently responsible, trustworthy, harmonious, prosocial and accountable management or leadership with integrity, including prioritising the interests of stakeholders other than themselves, especially when this may impede satisfying their self-interest”.
and again in May 2022 at the GEKoS conference hosted by my counterpart from EBEN Romania, Adriana Grigorescu.
Given my own varied and mixed, but ultimately always unsatisfactory, experiences during my own career with over 300 organisations on all continents (bar Antarctica) with over 50 people possessing what I refer to as the “ICE Characteristics” of being Intelligent, Charming and Eloquent, but also quite irresponsible and deceitful, people I now describe as “Disordered Leaders”, I would propose that as such dangerous people may even threaten the long-term viability of the organisation itself, when erroneously employed in senior roles within the organisations and entities of global society, they may even pose a threat to the continued success or even survival of the entity they mis-lead.
That is why at that both of these business ethics conference I proposed that the steps the rest of society needs to take to protect itself from such leaders include:
Intimidation and aggression produce fear, anxiety and discouragement, yet somehow people who regularly rather than exceptionally put-down, humiliate and disrespect others can extraordinarily be associated with “strength” of management or leadership rather than weakness of character and indeed perhaps even a “Personality Disorder”.
"While many people in society feel good from making others feel good, what needs to be better and indeed more globally appreciated is that there may be something wrong with those who themselves feel good when they make others feel bad."
(Clarke, Disordered Leadership)
Of course sports fans prefer their players and teams to win rather than lose, with the unpredictability one of the many factors which makes sport so engaging, but preferably with respect enhanced and not at the expense of the reputation or "good name" their team developed based on decades of fair and sporting endeavour.
Protecting a good name may be even more important when it is associated with high profile players considered to be of "good character", and whose memory lives on long after their playing days are over, still associated with the team they admirably and fairly represented, little different to the good name of former business leaders which lives on when still associated with the businesses they admirably and responsibly led, notably those which wisely chose successors of high personal integrity who well recognised that:
"There is no right way,
to do a wrong thing"
(Blanchard & Peale
"The Power of Ethical Management")
Perhaps Plato was right to suggest that:
"those who do not desire power may be more fit to hold it"
as they may be more capable of being trusted to use it constructively for the purposes intended?
Rather than the grandiose self-promotion and self-satisfaction more associated with "Disordered Leaders":
"At its most basic, much of the business ethics debate discusses why fundamentally good people do something wrong, usually under some form of pressure.
Unethical acts may also be performed by people who may themselves be fundamentally bad, doing what comes most naturally to them, causing harm to others, but who have developed a well-practiced expertise at portraying themselves as being good people.
Most of the time.
Then someone crosses their path when their true nature and covert characteristics may be exposed.
Their thinly veiled lack of concern for others, camouflaged emotional poverty, hidden hatreds, cloaked or even absent conscience and other previously concealed attributes and clandestine traits are no longer obscured by their charming veneer and disguised by their mask of sanity."
"The fact that those lacking in the emotions which most people possess have been shown to so readily and perhaps unwittingly engage in high levels of pathological lying and deceit, cunning manipulation and egocentric, callous and impulsive behaviour, characterised by a lack of responsibility, empathy and remorse, are also well versed in using their charm, confidence and arrogance to hide their true traits even from experienced psychologists poses many implications for the direction of business ethics research."
Julian Clarke: "Dispositional Attribution of Corporate Executives: Is Self-Interest a Conscious Decision or a State of Mind?"
Springer 2017
So with "win-win" wisely considered to be the better outcome arising from many forms of situations, including business negotiations and transactions, with one significant exception being in the delusional eyes and over-competitive minds of "Disordered Leaders" for whom
"win-lose" is far preferable to "win-win",
who excel at instilling fear, competition and discouragement in highly combative environments,
rather than appreciating the merits of genuine teamwork in collaborative and constructive environments,
given their innate preference for disharmony over harmony
Toxic cultures are not unique to business and have been found in elite sporting environments too, with advances in medical research and neuroscience confirming how counterproductive this can be.
Although intimidation and aggression produce fear, anxiety and discouragement, which prevent our minds from thinking positively and creatively, we still continue to choose people for managerial and other positions of responsibility who engage in such practices other than very occasionally.
Hence the importance of leaders and managers behaving in a predominantly positive manner – cajoling, encouraging, motivating and even inspiring those they have responsibility for, even when they have not quite performed to their potential, which those with ample “emotional intelligence” are often very well equipped to both realise and practice.
Indeed global society seems to continually make the mistake of selecting and electing people to positions whereby they are expected to motivate them towards achieving common goals, often called “leadership”, in effect with responsibility for the lives and emotions of other people, when they cannot even display the competence to manage their own emotions and the manner in which they engage with other people.
Yet somehow those who put-down, humiliate, disrespect and bully others can somehow erroneously be associated with “strength” rather than “weakness” of both leadership and character, perhaps even a “Personality Disorder”.
Neuroscientists explain that when people are satisfied, content and indeed happy, they avail of one set of brain regions which allows them to be at their best and most creative, seeking cooperation and wanting to fully engage, while when they are scared, fearful or unhappy, they avail of a different and rival set of brain regions (only one of which can appear to be active at any given time) more likely to bring out the worst in them, the response triggered when they are disrespected rather than encouraged by others.
Perhaps the most important set of brain regions associated with both emotions and decision-making are contained in and around the forehead area, the Pre Frontal Cortex (or PFC) and in particular how this area interacts (at its most basic) with the brain regions most associated with pleasure or “reward” (such as the Nucleus Accumbens in the Ventral Striatum, NAc) and fear or negative emotions (such as the Amygdala), the evaluation of situational demands and behavioural flexibility (such as the Anterior Cingular Cortex, ACC) and the less well understood role of regions responsible for our emotional awareness (such as our Insula or Anterior Insular Cortex, AIC) or our “conscious experience of emotions” meaning “how do I feel at the moment?” which very much determines our behaviour.
It is not just the specific brain region per se and the particular role it is considered to play that is key, rather the way the various brain regions share information, and cooperate with each other, perhaps in competition with other brain regions, all in a fraction of a second, which determines the way we feel, act, react and make our decisions.
Indeed specific regions seem to form part of a system and perform particular functions, either in tandem with or in the opposite manner to other systems, such as the “Default Mode Network”, “Task Positive Network” and “Social Network”, together with the systems throughout our bodies such as the “Autonomic Nervous System” and its “Sympathetic Nervous System” or “Parasympathetic Nervous System”
Far too many workplaces, including sporting training grounds, involve far greater levels of stress than necessary, quite counterproductive, especially when the stress is a result of the behaviour of the negativity associated with “Disordered Leaders”, who are more likely to trigger the body’s “Sympathetic Nervous System”, starting with the amygdala within a split second of the adverse situation, before our conscious thought is even aware of the situation.
The amygdalae (right and left) are usually associated with emotion, behaviour and the processing of fear, but also seem to play a role in orchestrating emotional responses to both positive and negative stimuli and forming memories of both.
Nevertheless significant activation of the amygdala together with other brain regions, especially those in the limbic system, are more associated with fear and negative emotions, which should not be the goal of anyone in managerial or leadership roles in any branch of society.
Of course difficult situations arise in business and organisational life, but the role of managers and leaders is to manage these calmly, effectively, astutely, constructively and productively, not create them themselves to the detriment of not only everyone else involved but ultimately potentially the success or even viability of the organisation itself.
Without regular and periodic positive “renewal” experiences, chronic stress can contribute to deteriorating personal performance in whatever area of life the stress is created.
In stark contrast, “Constructive Leaders” are far more likely to trigger the body’s “Parasympathetic Nervous System” with far more positive effects arising from their far more encouraging and motivational leadership.
Indeed renewal of the body especially after stressful situations is activated by the Parasympathetic Nervous System which is the neural hormonal endocrine activation that allows the body to rebuild itself.
This one goes through, as all do, the amygdala, but it often hits the orbital frontal cortex, part of the nucleus accumbens and very often a stimulation of the vagus nerve.
As this circuit starts to hit other parts of the brain, a different set of hormones are being secreted into the bloodstream, mainly oxytocin in women and vasopressin in men.
Stimulation of the vagus nerve and secretion of oxytocin and vasopressin means they act as “vasodilators” and do the opposite to what epinephrin/norepinephrine does. What they are doing is opening up the blood vessels, so as a consequence people feel warmer, blood pressure and pulse rate drop, breathing slows down and becomes deeper and the immune system returns to its fullest capability.
Bodily including mental renewal from activation of the Parasympathetic Nervous System results in people feeling more elated and the body rebuilding itself neurologically, with the possible growth of new neural tissue (neurogenesis), engaging the immune system (becoming healthier) and people becoming more open to new ideas, emotions, other people (especially if they are different) and new possibilities, learning, adaptation and change.
Research suggests that it is in this arena of arousal and activation, that people are at their cognitive best and, being at their most creative and feeling joyful and amused, can undertake the most complex activities, perform at their best and approach achieving their potential.
Consequently it should go without saying that business and sporting managers who are generally positive should be hired or promoted over those who can tend more towards any form of consistent rather than occasional negativity.
“Constructive Leaders” help to create a sense of purpose, hope and collaborative teamwork in a "fun" environment involving "playfulness' (or to the Irish "craic"), which can tend to “bring out the best” in people and help them want to strive to fulfil their own potential, something which Constructive Leaders are far more likely to notice than “Disordered Leaders” who may not even be interested in other people at all and may even derive pleasure from making them feel inferior, useless and miserable, spending inordinate lengths of time activating the Sympathetic Nervous System, which has been shown to be detrimental to people’s physical, mental and emotional health.
"Showing an interest" is indeed one of the factors I noticed during my career which makes for healthy or unhealthy relationships and good or bad or effective and ineffective supervisors, managers and leaders of other people, with my personal description for many years being:
GIVERS who are “more interested in others than themselves”, while
TAKERS are “more interested in themselves than others.
The primary difference between Givers and Takers is Egocentricity or
“the tendency to emphasise one’s own needs, concerns and outcomes rather than those of others” and
“perceive situations from one’s own perspective”
So the ability to show a genuine interest in other people and act accordingly is important when trusted with responsibility for other people, with “interest” also being one of the key aspects of the formative discipline of “positive psychology.”
Many well known people including former national leaders have commented in their public speaking that
“optimists make opportunities of their difficulties, while pessimists make difficulties of their opportunities”.
This observation alone suggests the importance of ensuring that those with a generally positive and encouraging disposition are employed in roles in which they can use their skills and personality to “make opportunities out of difficulties” and engage the talents of those they have responsibility to cooperate towards dealing with whatever the challenges of difficulties may be.
Yet there are far too many employed in responsible roles whose very negativity and other aspects of their personality results in they failing to see when they are “making difficulties out of opportunities”, especially when they believe only they have the ability to solve difficulties (including those they may insufficiently appreciate that they created themselves) and no-one else matters, contributing to they seeming to derive some form of pleasure from making other people feel worse.
We could or should perhaps ask the question:
“how does that person make you feel when you have just been in their company?”
Better or worse? Encouraged, uplifted and motivated or discouraged, demotivated and even humiliated?
Self-centred people with no real interest in other people can fake such an interest when it suits them, but when it doesn’t their true selfishness can be evident.
Contrary to common expectations of strong, dominant leaders also being self-centred and proud (characteristics typically associated with “takers”), research suggests that those “givers” who also display humility should most certainly not be associated in any shape or form with weakness.
Jim Collins and his team examined many companies to find those which went from ‘Good to Great’ and their research found that all such companies, in contrast to less successful ‘comparison companies’ in the same industry, had what they describe as ‘Level 5 leadership during the pivotal transition years’.
Citing five leadership levels, Collins noted that:
“Level 5′ leaders who ‘build enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will’ also ‘channel their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company. It’s not that Level 5 leaders have no ego or self-interest. Indeed they are incredibly ambitious, but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves…
They set up their successors for success in the next generation, where others set up their successors for failure…
They are resolved to do whatever it takes to make the company great, no matter how big or hard the decisions… They attribute success to factors other than themselves, yet when things go poorly, blame themselves and take full responsibility… They display a compelling modesty, are self-effacing and understated.
In contrast, two thirds of comparison companies had leaders with gargantuan personal egos that contributed to the demise or continued mediocrity of the company.”
Jim Collins, Good to Great, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...And Others Don't, Random House, 2001)
Persuading those more interested in themselves to focus their primary attention on the group at large can pose an enormous challenge to their colleagues, as self-centred people often fail to recognise themselves as being selfish, even when alerted to the trait.
If Abraham Lincoln was right to remark that:
“Human action can be modified to some extent but human nature cannot be changed” (Lincoln, 1860).
great caution should therefore be shown before appointing “TAKERS” to leadership positions, irrespective of their other talents, lest their personal agendas and inability to empathise with colleagues or show remorse for their actions should lead their firms down a slippery path.
Yet society continues to appoint charming yet self-centred, narcissistic and ultimately destructive people to managerial and even leadership roles for which they are utterly and fundamentally ill equipped, especially when they consistently seek to personally prevail over others, diminish their confidence and self-esteem including by way of humiliation, being typically more motivated by "win-lose" than "win-win".
So maybe a question that could be especially asked of sportspeople and businesspeople is:
"Is it possible to win - yet lose"?
Organisations are far more likely to be successful, especially over the longer term, when leaders are selected who display a
‘paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will’
who
‘channel their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company’
and whose
‘ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves’.
When people in senior positions display the level of humility to downplay their own involvement in achievements and praise the role of others, provide encouragement to their colleagues or admit to their own errors and visibly forgive colleagues for their failings, others throughout the organisation are more likely to follow suit. Such organisations ‘live and learn’ from decisions which transpire to be mistakes and are not subsequently prevented from taking courageous decisions when in due course they are required. People trust such leaders and ‘genuine teamwork’ can be particularly evident in their organisations.
Undoubtedly people better respond to leaders who show a greater interest in others than themselves, well capable of predominantly bringing joy and the other positive emotions to the group they lead.
Yet there are far too many people in senior roles who routinely discourage and demotivate those they are supposed to be encouraging and motivating, and get a greater kick from humiliating than praising others.
Not only is there something wrong with those lacking a sense of wrong, but also with those who can be at their happiest making others unhappy and who seem to derive pleasure from seeking to disturb the happiness of others.
As people with identifiable Personality Disorders can be
“found in every race, culture, society and walk of life”
(RD Hare, Without Conscience, 1993)
one of the most critical matters to appreciate is that as “Disordered Leaders”
see things differently,
experience people differently,
perceive many matters differently,
think differently,
behave differently and
inhabit a quite different world from most others in society,
it is imperative that they be recognised by decision-makers as being substantially different from the norm, being consummate actors hiding their true selves much of the time, hence need to be dealt with significantly differently, including denying them positions of power which they can only abuse, if they are no longer to be permitted to continue to damage the world that everyone else inhabits.
Appreciating that their conscience-free mind may be disordered, thinking “distorted” and emotional depth “shallow”, could be a critical first step on the road to progress, otherwise a frustratingly fruitless exercise.
Any attempts at trying to deal with them “normally” may well be doomed to failure.
As “self-centred” has been defined by Merriam-Webster as
“concerned solely with one’s own desires, needs, or interests” and “independent of outside force or influence”,
one of my key arguments is that, at its most basic, global society needs those I describe as “GIVERS” in leadership roles throughout global society, being “more interested in others than themselves” and most certainly not “TAKERS” who, being “more interested in themselves than others”, are unlikely in either normal or more challenging times to prioritise the interests and needs of the organisation or entity and the people they lead over their own.
Of course being a “giver” alone does not make a great leader; many other characteristics are also required, but a core and genuine interest in the people being led, described as “interest” by the field of positive psychology, is more likely to encourage the required response than when the leader is a taker “more interested in self than others”.
Aren't the best respected sportspeople - as well as businesspeople and those in other walks in life - the people whose considerable achievements do not seem to have made them arrogant?
Don't people seem to respect those who downplay their personal contribution, show an interest in and are consistently encouraging to others, while deflecting praise away from themselves towards those who also contributed, notably their teammates, even in the most individual of sports?
There is no humility in humiliation nor humiliation in humility.
As Ken Blanchard and Norman Vincent Peale observed in “The Power of Ethical Management”:
“People with humility don’t think less of themselves… they just think of themselves less”.
(Blanchard & Peale, 1988).
For Leadership and Management to further evolve, it requires those whose expertise includes encouragement and motivation not discouragement and humiliation, respect not disrespect, inclusion not exclusion, collaboration not conflict and long-term vision, not short-sighted myopia, preferably with a demonstrably greater interest in the entity and people being led than themselves.
Given that the “common denominator” in every business and indeed organisation is “people”:
“As far as leadership concerned, all the intelligence in the world is of little or no value… if none of it is emotional.”
Here are some comments from June 2017 on sporting integrity and parallels with other areas of life, including business, available as a PDF for download: