The erosion of character
Remember when good character was de rigueru? Not anymore.
Many of us have looked on at geopolitical events this last week with a deep sense of foreboding and a feeling that what were once accepted norms of behaviour have been completely upended.
As I wrote about in the Suite Spot, which is my new LinkedIn newsletter (there’s a link to it in the shownotes), it’s time to ask if character has gone out of fashion.
Because it’s not just that some very powerful people are acting out in ways that can best be described as shocking, it’s also that so many corporate leaders have decided to turn with the winds of change and dismantle decades of progress because they are out of fashion too.
Think inclusion or sustainability.
I posited that character was out of fashion in my newsletter, but my good friend and colleague, Pauline Holland, challenged this perspective, saying that she didn’t believe that character is out of style, but rather it’s the stark reality that one person’s ‘good character’ is another person’s ‘deficient character’. And that it’s here that the battle lines have been drawn.
I agree with Pauline, that that’s the game we’re now seeing playing out.
And it seems to me that appropriating the idea of good character is much like appropriating ‘truth’ or alternative facts. It’s the ultimate postmodern trope that everyone’s ideas are as valid as everyone else’s. And it’s time those of us who believe in normative values stand up and be counted.
In practice this means that we must guard very carefully against the idea that bullying, lying and intimidation can be co-opted as the behaviour of good character, because
‘the ends justify the means’. That so long as you get the result you want it doesn’t matter how you got there.
But Pauline’s challenge is well made. Whose idea of character should we accept? In a post-truth world is everything up for grabs?
For me there are some fundamental foundational tenants of good character that have to be present in order for a character to be described as ‘good’.
What I’m describing as ‘bad’ character, then, is predicated on behaviour based on our dealings with others that can be typified as a zero-sum game. The idea that success is finite, and for one person or group to win, another must lose.
It’s a worldview that fuels ruthless competition, short-term gains, and a relentless focus on outcomes over ethics.
One of the things that made the late Steven Covey’s book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People a worldwide bestseller in the late 1980s in which he outlined the concept of the “Character Ethic” (long-term principles of success) versus the “Personality Ethic” (short-term techniques for getting ahead) is that he didn’t just make it up.
Covey drew inspiration from timeless principles found in philosophy, psychology, and religion, arguing that effectiveness is rooted in aligning one’s actions with universal principles like integrity, responsibility, and continuous growth.
And it’s the continuous growth that strikes a particular chord with me. I hold a deep-seated belief in the evolution of human consciousness. That human beings, individually and collectively, can and do evolve to know more and be more.
In our relationships and dealings with others we therefore might ask ourselves, is my behaviour enriching or is it sullying? Is it inclusive and expansionary, or does it see our humanity contract?
When we judge behaviours over a news cycle, it might seem like character doesn’t matter. The art of the deal is get the deal done at any cost. But history shows that eventually, society punishes those leaders to erode trust and take us further back on our evolutionary trajectory, not forward.
I hope as the trend for an expansive, inclusive and evolutionary form of character is eroded, business leaders decide this is a fashion trend they’re not prepared to follow.
