We awake this morning to the sad news of protests, many turning violent, in the wake of the Grand Jury’s decision not to charge the police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. I was reminded of a timely conversation I had with Durwin Foster http://www.durwinfoster.com/ a counsellor I met some years ago while working with a mens’ group at the Cathedral where I work in my other job.. www.thecathedral.ca 

Durwin and I met to get caught up, and the subject turned to ethics. We were talking about the difference between “the law” and “ethics”. The difference is often even described about the law in the phrase, the ‘spirit or the letter of the law.’ The business world is filled with examples of us making decisions based on the letter of the law, and not the spirit. And we do so at our peril. When we see an unjust decision, even when we understand the logic behind the decision, even when we see the letter of the law, we will often respond based on our understanding of the spirit of the law.  

And as leaders, standing behind the ‘letter of the law’ is a place that saps your credibility.

Now, I do see the value in logic and the letter of the law, especially when it protects innocent people from mobs of other people who ‘feel’ an injustice has been done. People attacking Mosques, or vandalizing Moslem owned stores for example are reacting based on their emotional response to a perceived injustice. The letter of the law then is absolutely vital for a healthy society.  And all of that said, particularly in the business environment, sticking only to the ‘letter’ of the law in our decision making creates unnecessary rifts in the team.

So here are three suggestions to help build your ‘spirit of the law’ decision making:

1. Think about the kind of decision you’re making. Is it a decision that the team could make themselves for instance. Do you have to make all of the decisions? If not, let the team, or others on the team make some decisions. It will empower them, and add to your credibility.
2. Seek input, and make sure you use the input. Very little angers a team more than being asked to contribute to a decision and then seeing it have no effect.
3. Understand the history of the team and where they have come from. If for example your predecessors were autocratic rulers as leaders it may take some time for the team to become comfortable with making more decisions on their own. Or, if your team was managed by a caretaker manager, who’s main mission in life was avoiding conflict, then you may need to work on the context, help your team understand the need for a more ‘by the book’ style, at least for the time being.

May this week be one of growth and learning and working with the ‘spirit of the law’ in our teams.