I’m Just a Soul Whose Intentions Are Good

I’m just a soul whose intentions are good;
Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood.

Don’t Let me Be Misunderstood, by Benjamin, Caldwell, Marcus 

So goes the song (written for Nina Simone, made famous by The Animals). Heaven forbid: Oh lord, please—don’t let me be misunderstood.

Being misunderstood is a terrible thing, we say. My intentions are what’s important, we say—look at my intentions, not at my actions. Then you’ll understand me.

The US criminal justice system, as we’ll forever be reminded from Law & Order reruns, has two parts: the police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.

At least in the TV version, cops who are interested in understanding intention—intention leads to motive. It helps explain behavior, and leads to discovery.

In the courtroom, the crime is partially defined by intent. Killing someone with intent is generally considered more heinous than killing with no intention to do so. Sentencing, too, is affected by intent, as in ‘he still shows no remorse.’

We fear being misunderstood, of having bad motives attributed to us. Yet we attribute bad motives to others all the time. He has it in for me…he never listens to us…he only cares about getting his own…and so forth.

There is a constant interplay between intent and perception. It’s the territory that’s inhabited by PR firms and political consultants. And it’s that interplay that heavily determines trust, among other things.

Big Oil and Its Intent

While consuming gasoline this weekend in the great American pastime of driving while radio channel-flipping, I heard John Hoffmeister, former president of Shell Oil, respond to a question (I’m paraphrasing here by memory): “If BP really didn’t want a massive spill like this, then how can you explain their failure to have adequate prevention mechanisms in place?”

Hoffmeister then spoke some truth (again, by my memory): “Of course I wasn’t there, but in such situations, it’s often not the equipment—steel is steel—it’s the human, managerial part of the equation that goes wrong.”

It usually is. I sincerely doubt that a single employee of BP wants, desires, intends to spew hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. I sincerely doubt that anyone in BP is indifferent to the pain and suffering of living creatures and the ecosystem in coastal Louisiana. Yet those motives and worse are easily attributed to Big Oil. And hardly without reason.

The face of evil is far more mundane than the conspiracy theorists suggest. The excellent Wall Street Journal series  documents, at a micro-level, how good intentions can co-exist with disastrous decisions.

You can also destroy good intentions with an ongoing climate of fear, confusing goals, and conflicting pressures; see David Gebler’s account of unethical behavior.

How Good Intentions Get Subverted

It’s hard to do good from bad intentions. But Eric Burdon’s plea notwithstanding, good intentions not only won’t keep you from being misunderstood, they are impotent in the face of failure to act on them. The road to hell, it is said, is paved with good intentions.

What are some of the most common ways in which good intentions go bad? Here are a few.

1. “It’s not illegal.” Those who invoke the law as a way to justify their good intentions are scraping the bottom of the ethical barrel. Laws are simply the extreme version of social sanctions. Their presence means some proscription has gotten so odious that society chose to ossify it in a law. The absence of such ossification is so distant from evidence of good intentions as to be absurd. We rightly shame people who try to make the connection.

2. “It’s our policy.” Variations on the theme include “I was just following orders,” and “that’s just how things work.” At its best, this an evasion of personal responsibility by blaming things on a ‘system.’

3. “I had no choice.” On the face of it, like number 2, but accompanied by an anguished plea of being caught between rocks and hard places—there was no time, everybody was yelling at me to finish the job, it’s been done before…”

It’s a basal human trait to desire to be understood. More evolved human traits include the ability to detach from that desire, and at the same time do things in a ways that ensure good intentions are in fact clear.

How do investment bankers defraud entire nations? How do oil companies poison entire ecosystems? How do companies come to be mistrusted?

One step a time. One small, innocuous, seemingly inconsequential step at a time. The devil may lurk in our hearts, but he lives in the details.
 

3 replies
  1. peter vajda
    peter vajda says:

    Great stuff, Charlie. I love your laser-like way of moving to the truth.

    You ask, "How do investment bankers defraud entire nations? How do oil companies poison entire ecosystems? How do companies come to be mistrusted?"

    Me, I would also ask, "Why?" And I would suggest a deeper exploration about that devil who lurks in  folks’ hearts. The "details" are a result. The use of "common intentions" is a result. What’s underneath? It’s what’s underneath that motivates some of these folks to behave in life-destroying (vs. life-affirming) ways.

    When one BP executive says the plume(s) is non-existent (contrary to independent scientists’ findings), when another basically says that given the size of the Gulf and the world’s vast oceans, the leakage is (paraphrasing) no big deal, I’m reminded of Leona Helmsley’s referenece to the "little people" for whom she manifested such disrespect and disdain –  as though they represented no essential good (or goodness?)and, to her, were simply an irritant.

    To me, such orientations to life, to people, to the planet are symptoms of a broken and wounded heart. And folks with wounded hearts generally can’t or won’t see the world through the lenses of love, compassion, the common good… Their "good intentions," at best, are "mental constructs" which allow them to "play at" being heart-felt, concerned and the like, but, in reality, they are not heart-driven. The heart is what leads us to "right knowing," right unbderstanding" and "right action" –  the things of integrity. "Faux" intentions do not.

    Misunderstandings, misperceptions and misconceptions are most often the result of my own misundertandings of the world and the people in it generated by my own broken and wounded heart.

    Yes, it’s a basal trait to want to be understood…but not condoned and forgiven when one is out of integrity. Understanding is not agreement. Calling folks on their "faux" intentionality, supporting them to go inside and "know theyself" (e.g., looking at one’s tendencies towards self-deception and duplicity) is one way to be honestly, sincerely and self-responsibly understood. Until that happens, perhaps we can say, "I’m just a lost, misguided and wounded soul whose intentions are fake, duplicitous and deceitful (and maybe I don’t even know it) but I need you to love me anyhow ’cause I’m having a real hard time truly loving myself." 

    Me: as for good intentions co-existing with disastrous consequences, there’s the "accidents happen"  (you know, "God did it") comment about the leakage that negates ommissions and commissions, and there are truly disastrous consequences.

    It takes a discerning soul to know the difference. Discerning, not misunderstood.

    Reply
  2. Ann Kruse
    Ann Kruse says:

    Charlie –

    You observations are painful and so true!  All of our analytical planning methods assume a connection between intentions, actions, and results.  We have so much to learn about our limitations as human beings!

    Last night I watched "The Smartest Guys in the Room" on TV.  It’s about Enron. Same story. The focus on profits leads to decisions that lead to disaster.  There’s an excellent discussion of the effect of leadership on decisions made at the lower levels, based on Stanley Milgram’s infamous psychology experiment that shows how common it is for human beings to follow the directions of authority figures, the "I was following order mentality."

    Do the people at the top ever think about or care about the long term impact of their actions, their decisions, or the type of culture they create?  We pay leaders mega salaries because they supposedly have and can execture a long-term vision.  Then when things go wrong, they bring out every excuse in the book, "I didn’t know… we were following the law….We couldn’t predict…" 

    Thanks for raising these questions.

    Ann

     

     

     

     

    Reply
  3. John Gies
    John Gies says:

    Charlie,

    As usual I enjoy your insight and direct look at the question. As I read your post I was struck by the comment that good intentions gone wrong manifest as comments like;

    "it’s not illeagal" or "It’s our Policy" or "I did not have a choice".

    When I hear these phrases my "spidey sense" goes off and I assume the intentions are not pure. It is like the sales person who is always saying "Trust me". I think thou doest protest too much.

    Intentions come from the heart. They are formed by the deeply held values that we all have, "Show me your values and I will know your intentions".

    @ Peter, I like your thoughts particularly,…To me, such orientations to life, to people, to the planet are symptoms of a broken and wounded heart. And folks with wounded hearts generally can’t or won’t see the world through the lenses of love, compassion, the common good.

     

    Thanks for the conversation.

     

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.