Ethics and Values: July 2009 Archives

Dear Brett,

First, as a loyal Packer fan let me thank you for the great memories -- the Monday night miracle after the death of your father, the Super Bowl games, the last minute come from behind victories like the one my brother and I watched together in Houston.

But, now that you have decided to retire from football -- at least that is what you are telling us today -- let me offer you a little unsolicited advice.  Learn to define who you are beyond just what you have done for a living.

It was a lesson my wife helped me learn after we sold our business.  She put me in time out -- no deals for at least six months -- which forced me to really stop and ponder who I was beyond what I did for a living.  It helped me remember that I was more than just an entrepreneur.

We should not let ourselves understand who we are only by what we do for a living.  Don't simply define who you are as a person by your career as an NFL quarterback.  Don't get me wrong -- that must be a really cool job!  However, do not let yourself define who you are too narrowly.  

It seems to me as an outside observer that you may be a bit lost.  I worry that you may have fallen into the trap where nothing else in his life has any real meaning without that career to define yourself.

I have warned entrepreneurs that they should not define who they are only by the noun of what they do for a living.  Although they may start and grow businesses, defining themselves as only an entrepreneur seems to crowd out so many other important parts of their lives.  

We have seen evidence of the danger of defining who you are by what you do in your work from others who have also failed their attempts at retirement. Lee Iacocca could not stay retired as a corporate executive.  Dan Rather could not stay away from the teleprompter after he retired from the evening news.  And just like you, Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan could not stay retired as athletes. For all of them, it appeared that they may have let what they did for their work define who they were as people.

Careers can do this to us. If we are not careful, they can consume all that we are. And what gets lost as a result?  Our families, our friendships, and even our souls.

If we are to become all that we were put on this Earth to do, we have to temper the temptation to become consumed by our work. We need to resist becoming the noun of what we do for a living.

So Brett, work hard at being a good husband. Work hard at being a good parent. Work hard at worshiping God if you are so inclined. Work hard at being a good friend to those who know the real you -- not just the guy who wears #4. Work hard at being a good citizen in your community. Remember that none of these alone can fulfill our humanness.

One of the risks of using nouns to describe what we do in our work is that it can reinforce the tendency we all have to get carried away with our work. I loved starting a growing businesses (most of the time, at least). I love teaching and writing. It is indeed a blessing to love what one does for a living and joy the hard work that goes along with it. But, I need to be more than just an entrepreneur or a teacher.  With every virtue there is a vice looming in the background. Although hard work is a good thing, it can be taken to excess and become a vice if it keeps us from all the other things we should be doing with our lives.

American society does not make this any easier. I am reminded of the lyric from a jazz record from the 1980s that said, "Everything in moderation, and moderation is the first to go." We have become a culture of excess.

This is particularly true for the entrepreneurs out there who read this blog. We seem to create folk heroes out of entrepreneurs who expend Herculean efforts to achieve success in their businesses. And while this is good to a point, if entrepreneurial success comes at the expense of our marriage, our families, our faith, and our friendships, it is a hollow victory. If all we have at the end of our lives is our wealth, if that is all we leave behind, that is not a life well lived. As the old saying goes, "you never see a hearse with a luggage rack."

I hope you find fulfillment in the rest of your life on the Earth.  After all, the actuaries tell us that as someone about to turn forty, you have lived less than half of your expected life.  And whatever it is you decide to do next, always keep room in your life for all the things that really matter.

Best regards,

Dr.C.

Pope Benedict XVI has released his latest encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth), which addresses many pressing issues related to the world economy.

As with all documents of this complexity and depth, there is much room for interpretation.  Much of the media is focusing on the discussion of common good.  Take for example the New York Times piece on that they titled "Pope Urges Forming New World Economic Order to Work for the 'Common Good'".

One has to be careful to understand what is meant by terms like new world order and common good.  Those who favor more government control and/or more socialistic policies assume that this plays right into their hands.

The writings of both Benedict XVI and John Paul II favor capitalism over socialism.  Their discussions of common good and economic reform are not open doors for centralized economies.  They are directing their words to each of us as individual actors.

It took me a while to fully understand this as Mike Naughton and I worked on our book, Bringing Your Business to Life.  When I first heard Mike talk about common good I found myself brissling, getting ready to defend against the onslaught of socialism.

But I soon learned that common good is not about economic structures, but rather about the moral responsibility we have as individuals to others as we go about our business starting new ventures, buying stocks, working, and managing others.

This quote on the newest encyclical from the Acton Institute makes this point very clearly:

Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president and cofounder of the Acton Institute, said the new encyclical will disappoint those who had hoped that Benedict would attack the free economy. Instead, the pope rightly focuses on two practical applications of the principle of "truth in charity." First, this principle takes us beyond earthly demands of justice, defined by rights and duties, and introduces essential moral priorities of giving, mercy, and communion. Second, "truth in charity" is always focused on the common good, which Benedict defines as an extension of individual's good who lives in society and has broad social responsibilities.

"If people are looking to this document as a blueprint for the political restructuring of the world economy, they will fail to find it," Rev. Sirico said. "If they look to it as a means for the moral reconstruction of cultures and societies, which in turn influence economic events, they will find plenty."

We should listen to Michael Novak's caution on the potential evils that lie in assuming that government is the key to a new economic reality.

For moralists, it is essential to see how often (not always) government itself sins grievously against the common good, out of a lust for power and domination over others. Furthermore, government often (not always) generates foolish and destructive regulations, and often dispenses justice that winks rather than justice that is blind. Government is more frequently the agent of injuring the common good than the ordinary lawful actions of free citizens. During the twentieth century, governments too often destroyed the common good of their citizens for years to come.

Do not assume that all small government advocates root for a survival of the fittest, every man for himself.  In fact, small government only works well when it is in the context of a deep moral culture in which man is challenged to be truly good.  Man is at his best when he performs good acts because he understands it is what is expected of him by God.  We should never let man off the hook by abdicating morality to governmental authority.