December 12th, 2011
I recently participated in a panel discussion about leadership. The conversation was specifically focused on a leaders role in creating an inclusive organizational culture, and the whole thing just made me very scratchy. I tried to not make a big stink during the conversation, but I felt that we were way off base.
The golden rule was mentioned numerous times.
And the golden rule is one of those things.
The golden rule is part of the problem dressed up as solution; it is one of those things that that is about good intentions rather than better outcomes.
And this is what is wrong with a great deal of the work done today in the name of diversity and inclusion. Much current D&I work is informed by a paradigm of intentions, rather than a paradigm of outcomes. And probably the biggest outcome of these efforts is that we have gotten much better at proclaiming our good intentions (as individuals and organizations).
This is really unfortunate and I think counterproductive.
This is a big part of why D&I work is stuck in the mud today.
This is why the conversations that we have about D&I are still anchored in concepts like respect, compassion, patience, tolerance, sensitivity…all words that are oriented towards individual intentions, not shared outcomes. D&I work based on the false dichotomy of good person / bad person is of little positive impact.
If we tell ourselves that the only problem is hate, we avoid facing the reality that it is mostly nice, non-hating people who perpetuate racial inequality.
-Ellis Close
The golden rule is a perfect example. Applying the golden rule or proclaiming that I apply the golden rule to others allows me to stand up as one of the “good ones” with good intentions, but it actually runs counter to outcome based D&I work.
If our relationships, processes, decision making and organizations are to be more inclusive, they will be characterized by shared power and co-creation. The golden rule shapes relationships that are built on my terms. The golden rule is simply an extension of the privilege of position or identity, it is treating a human being as an object.
You do not know how I want to be treated. It may come from the best of intentions, but assuming that I want to be treated the same way that you want to be treated is some combination of lazy, ignorant and arrogant.
Good intention, bad outcome.
Any practice that divorces a human being from their own decision making, determination and self expression is exclusive, not inclusive.
Look beyond aspirations to be a “good person.” What are the actual outcomes of your behaviors? What are the outcomes for others? What evidence exists in the world that you are inclusive?
Be good to each other.
I know it’s completely passe to leave an actual comment on an actual blog but I very much agree with this post. I was also recently having a conversation about this concept (although it was not about leadership, it was in my living room with several family members) and it was startling how much this concept has taken root. It seems like the nicest thing you can do or say, when in fact, it’s the pinnacle of selfishness and part of the reason we get so much WRONG when it comes to, other people. I guess I would answer that with another cliche “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Great post. When working with international students in the higher ed setting, our trainings often included a discussion of what you are talking about here, but rather “the platinum rule.” Treat others as *they* wish to be treated. A relationship built not just on your terms, but on the other person’s terms and in an effort to respect and honor who they are and in a shared space for an authentic relationship.
Great post. When working with international students in the higher ed setting, our trainings often included a discussion of what you are talking about here, but rather “the platinum rule.” Treat others as *they* wish to be treated. A relationship built not just on your terms, but on the other person’s terms and in an effort to respect and honor who they are and in a shared space for an authentic relationship.
I read this a couple of times because it bothered me but that is what good writing and good thinking does; it bothers you, challenges you. I love it. Great work, this deserves to be shared.
I couldn’t agree more – it’s not like the old adage – “treat others the way you want to be treated”. Today should be about treating others the way THEY want to be treated.
[…] Here’s the Thing About the Golden Rule by Joe Gerstandt. […]
It’s a good post! It does make you think about several things. Are we being presumptuous by saying the objective is to treat everybody the way we want to be treated or is it another accepted slogan? I believe it is more important to learn as much as you are able to about others so that there is a mutual interest and effort in genuine respectability. There are many people who may not take me home to dinner who at work are champions of my intentions and vice versus. I think too much is made of acceptance rather than on understanding which, engenders respect, trust and all the other intangibles D&I calls for. Nothing grates me more than the notion that I expect to be treated the way I treat you. Relationship building is a two way street; I learn about you and maybe you care about me. It’s about pulling rather than pushing.
There’s been some discussion about the true meaning of empathy in the online autism community which addresses such concepts as theory of mind (a whole ‘nother can of worms I won’t really address here) and the assumption that one truly knows what the other wants (i.e. that a neurotypical, a neurologically typical person truly understands what an autistic person would want/think/desire etc. and vice versa).
It’s been said that the only way to have any true empathy or understanding is to literally remove one’s self from one’s own mental shoes and then place oneself in the shoes of the other, without projection one’s own beliefs, prejudices, etc. onto the other person. When you made the statement “You do not know how I want to be treated” that is entirely accurate — no one else would know how I wanted to be treated unless they were to ask me. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and good, misguided intentions will only lead to continued lack of understanding an inequality.
-Nicole
I think I can see what is intended here and have a lot of sympathy for the idea that we should not assume that others want what we want and that treating them as we would want to be treated could be hurtful to them. (If I have the sense of this piece).
I have, however two major concerns with this.
The Golden Rule is being taken too literally in many cases. I believe it to imply that one should try not to do harm to another, i.e. respect them for who they are, even if they are different from you, as you would like to be respected for who you are.
It certainly doesn’t mean, although some could read it this way, that if you would like a hug you, should go round hugging other people. It is a moral imperative not a guide to physical gratification.
And secondly, there is the possibility that some could misapply the concept of treating others as they want to be treated. By this I mean that there are those that would say that a slave is happy to be a slave and so should be treated as one, that a victim has become accustomed to being a victim and that is how they want to be treated.