This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon: October 7, 2008 - In one month, I will be in California giving an ethics workshop - "Bad Apples or Bad Trees?" - to a group of investment professionals. From what I can tell, interest in this topic has spiked recently. I know this because - in my usual way of preparing for such a workshop - I have burdened friends, family, students and colleagues with monologues rehearsing my views and making my case. This way, I hope that having their best thinking keeps me from putting my worst thinking out to people who come to my workshops with a sincere desire to get the "ethics thing" right.
The more I talk about this, the more people want to talk about this. And by this, I mean whether things go wrong because of individual unethical choices or because the whole system is toxic or dysfunctional.
I have a fairly simple answer to this system vs. individual, the apple or the tree question. I will get to my answer in a bit. But first, let's review the approach taken to the biggest story of our time, the current meltdown of the U.S. economy. In particular, let's ask ourselves whose fault this mess is, who is to blame.
Read through stories about the crisis and you get the following individuals offered as culprits: Alan Greenspan, George Bush, the person who sold the loan, the person who bought it, Hank Paulson, John McCain, Barack Obama; you can add your own I am sure. Systems that get tagged for being corrupt or dysfunctional are the banking industry, the Fed, the Republicans, the Democrats, investors, sellers of loans, free marketers, foreigners. Again you can add others I am sure. Suffice it to say, there is plenty of blame to go around.
Still, blaming doesn't get us beyond the questions of how we can make sense of what has happened and how can we change things so that we do not end up in this same mess again?
So what about apples and trees?
Start with thinking about the last apple you purchased. There was a time when the primary concern when buying an apple was whether it was bruised or not. You picked it up, looked at it, felt around a bit and then if it passed the test, you put it in your basket and continued along with your shopping.
These days you are less likely to find bruised apples and more likely to wonder about what chemicals and what genetic tweaks brought you the near-perfect specimen you are holding in your hand. In the first approach the apple's acceptability is pretty straightforward, rotten or ripe that's the gist of the purchase decision. In the second, you need a degree in bio-chem or agronomy to know what you are really buying. Tougher decision process, much more to consider.
What about the tree? I am a little out of my league here, still I would bet that - except for a few "Tree Whisperer" types - very few orchard managers would claim that they are simply allowing the tree to unfold its natural essence. Pesticide, fertilizer, genetic improvements and other plant technologies are involved; and because they are involved, outcomes and mutations which up that outstrip the ability of current technology to respond to them; stronger pests, climate shifts, new strains of disease. Again, things are more complicated. Again, a lot more to consider when making a choice.
Just to give this picture one more layer of texture, think about this: China supplies more than half of the world's apples. China produces 15 percent more by quantity than it did three years ago, even factoring in a drop in production last year because of bad weather. China has brought the price of apples down.
China also does a less than stellar job on keeping poisonous things away from babies, with tainted milk being the latest example. This may not seem to be a direct answer to the apple vs. tree question, but in fact it is. The question now becomes, when discussing apples, what are we really talking about? Chemicals? Global economics? A tasty fruit? What?
So here's what I answer when asked whether I think it is individuals or systems, apples or trees. I say that's not really a very useful question anymore. Yes, it is an attention grabber, but it does not help us much when we are trying to sort out what to do when facing real problems or when we are trying to avoid having problems at all.
That question continues to treat moral dilemmas as things to understand and moral failures as things to be punished. It is the fulfillment of what has been identified as the triumph of analysis over solutions. This is not a knock on analysis, rather it is an acknowledgment that such analysis - when it comes to the individual vs. system question - is too often based on the application of established ways of thinking to what are for all intents and purposes completely new realities.
The conversation about safety and health issues of the individual apple shifts dramatically when you add plant life science and global economic influences. It is safe to say that three years out there will be new dynamics, technologies or economic shifts that will change the conversation even more. And so it is with the economy, global terrorism, being a good parent or giving one's employer or clients fair value for the amount they pay us. Things have shifted and more often than not, the way we try to work on them has not.
So what then is one to do about doing the right thing, being a moral person, family, organization or nation?
My simple answer is this: Pay attention. Not to the latest Obama or McCain campaign rants. Not to Paris Hilton or Toby Keith. Not to brighter teeth or fresher breath. Pay attention not to what is being said but what is really going on.
That we are in a mess is irrefutable. What will happen next is still unclear. So in the mean time do as little to escape reality and as much as possible to engage it. Paying attention is no magic bullet, but then magic bullets got us into this mess in the first place.
And, dare I say again, pay attention, careful attention.
Steve Lawler is a St Louis based writer, organizational psychologist and Episcopal priest. He is the author of the forthcoming novel, “Father FX Explains God.” He teaches leadership at Washington University.