RH: "Voyagers who know the location of quicksand navigate around it. When we clearly identify danger, we can prepare for it and avoid it....we all have the capacity to shut down our emotions. If we don’t feel anything, it doesn’t always mean our emotions are gone."

me: only to have emotions arise again and again, never having explored and dealt with them. When we bury emotions, we bury them alive. They will return - always.

RH: "hire psychologists to be part of the ethics and compliance team."

me: for any team. Most workplace "personality" and "values" issues can hardly ever be effectively dealt with from a "mental" (even a cognitive psychological) approach alone.

RH: A psychologist can assist executives and employees deal with their intense emotions.

me: in the final analysis it comes down to ego, how one's ego is formed and how it unconsciously interferes and gets in the way of allowing one's True, Authentic Self to operate. An effective psychologist can bring ego issues to the light of day.

What's curious to me is the 2008 date. This book is two (will be three) years old but it seldom appears in conversations. Why? My take is that folks love the safe, technology"-type approaches (e.g., three steps, two matrices, four tactics...and stay at arm's  length from looking at themselves) to "things personal" but not the deeper, (discomfort, fear-provoking, deeply honest) psychological approaches.

Until or unless "root cause" analysis is used to look at dysfunctional issues, dysfunction will continue.

FInally,

RH: "Ethics will continue its crucial job of advising us what the right behavior is and psychology will motivate us to do the right thing and help us stop our transgressions."

me: Psychology can't motivate. Some psychology can help us understand, really, really understand why we behave the way we do, why we behave inappropriately, in a defended manner, and then we can make up our own mind as to whether we choose to change, or not.

Sometimes, for some folks, the reward for doing the right thing doesn't have the same appeal as doing the wrong thing....even when we have that deeper understanding. Understanding (self-awareness that comes with a psychological approach) is but the first step to change.  "Do-ing" and "be--ing" then follow and these are not a given.

A spiritually-based psychological approach can often support one get to the root cause of self-defeating and self-limiting behavior by bringing one to get in touch with their Essential Self, True Self, their Source, the place from where one is often able to understand and move through the spiritual barriers (not only "psychlogical" barriers) that heretofore kept one stuck in their ego self.

The zero-sum approach, IMHO, necessitates an understanding of the interconnectivity of all beings, a spiritual (not only psychological) understanding. There are some psychologists that can't or won't grasp this concept.

So, there's psychology, and there's psychology.

But, for me, the premise obtains...that a psychologcal approach is a must-have.

Clarification:

I suggested, "The zero-sum approach, IMHO, necessitates an understanding of the interconnectivity of all beings, a spiritual (not only psychological) understanding. There are some psychologists that can't or won't grasp this concept.

Should read, "A win-win" approach (vs. zero-sum)...

I hear Barbara's reference to the characterization - "touchy-feely" – from time to time in my work, usually at the outset when they wonder who I am, what I do, how I do it and why I do it..

However, consider: A psychologist is: interested in human behavior, scary, works with organizations, explores attitudes and behavior, a counselor, supports self-awareness, facilitates groups, "touchy-feely," helps people actualize their potential, empathic towards others, threatening, thoughtful, mindful, heartfelt, insightful, compassionate….

Since no one is born with an innate definition of what a psychologist is, then an interesting question, for me, is not how do I characterize a psychologist, but why I choose the characterization I choose.

So, as for the "touchy-feely" descriptor, (and setting a safe context and container for exploration with someone who chooses this descriptor), I might be curious how one came to attach this label to a psychologist. My experience says that whatever responses ( and we'll do an inquiry that allows for more than one "reason" - and there is always more than one), the foundation is some flavor of fear. "Fear of what?" is the next step and this exploration, consistently and over time, is one that can lead to what's underneath one's "unethical" behavior (in this blog's scenario).

In my work, it's that "fearful" me who engages in unethical behavior…bottom line. The inquiry, exploration and practice to is to consciously consider: why? While I don't consider "inner work" the sole domain of psychology, I do believe one needs to incorporate psychological tools and techniques to get there. I would guess that a coach (me?), manager, leader, neighbor, or anyone else who uses such tools and techniques would also be labeled by some as "touchy-feely."

So, it's not about the profession. It's about my reactivity and resistance to that person who happens to be a (fill in the blank) who does "inner work."

That is, it's about "me," not him or her.

Peter, I really enjoy your responses.

Thanks again to Dr. Hoyk for the interview. 

In varying ways, both Barbara and Peter have honed in on the most interesting (to me) aspect of Hoyk's book, namely the use of a psychological approach to ethics.  I'm currently reading another (most excellent) book on the historical philosopical approaches to justice--utilitarianism, libertarianism, Aristotelian, etc. 

That book is more typical in its approach to ethical issues: it describes the various "oughts" that lead to various "isms" we think of when we think of ethics.  Hoyk's book is distinctive, in my experience, in its straightforward, simple (not simplistic) approach to what makes people stray.

There's a saying in the the treatment of addiction: if you don't want to get hit by a train, don't play on the train tracks.  If you're trying to quit drinking, you might not want to take a job as a bartender.  If you're a highway designer, you might want to build in speed bumps when approaching critical slow-down areas.  If you're given to fits of violence, maybe it's not a great idea to keep loaded guns around your house.  And so on. 

These are utterly sensible, practical, approaches to designing and intervening in workplace environments.  I don't think Hoyk is seriously suggesting that doing so will get one in touch with his or her True Self, nor that he's arguing against doing so.  He's offering some real-world concrete actions that can be taken to reduce unethical behavior.  It's true that helping people find their innermost fears will keep them from doing all kinds of bad things; but that doesn't mean the murder rate can't be cut by better lighting, more cops, and employment opportunities.

I fear that Barbara is perfectly right.  As an empirical observation, I think most employees in most companies indeed view psychologists as "shrinks," and would have exactly the reaction that Barbara imagines to their inclusion on an ethics and compliance team.

And Peter's also quite right in saying this is probably a fear-based characterization.  But there it is, nonetheless. 

The challenge to me that Hoyk is presenting management is to say, "so what, it makes a lot of sense--we're going to do it. Do a sweep of our practices and procedures like we'd ask a safety expert to look at our manufacturing processes." 

You don't need the consent of the driver to add speed bumps to the highway; there was a reason people were asked to check their guns at the bar in the Old West; and there's a reason we put lights and crossbars before grade crossings in the railroad.  These are simple things that can be done to reduce the temptations to unethical behavior that so frequently present themselves to the imperfect beings we all are.

Hi Barbara and Charlie,

I agree with you. Treading carefully is important. And, for me, gaining one's trust and providing a safe container for folks to open up, be honest and disclose is the most important factor. It can take time, and it's eminently do-able. Supporting one to let go of one's defenses is tricky stuff. Too, it's eminently do-able.

And, yes, language is important. People initially respond to me with some flavor of "What?!" but when I have the opportunity to explain my process, support it with a few case studies and relate the "work" to performance, productivity, profit and relationships, it's not so daunting. Their perception can and does change. 

As for Charlie's comment, "It's true that helping people find their innermost fears will keep them from doing all kinds of bad things; but that doesn't mean the murder rate can't be cut by better lighting, more cops, and employment opportunities." True, but that does not reduce or eliminate the tendency of one who is prone to violence or murder, and when the opportunity presents itself, what then? There are only so many street lights, jobs and cops.

Good stuff.