“Life isn’t fair”

What parent hasn’t heard the wail “That’s not fair!” Although it’s true that fairness is a human concept with which the Universe rarely aligns, I doubt that any outraged child was ever placated by my frustrated parent response, “life isn’t fair.”

Fairness, I’m told by others, is my personal value. “You know, Alan, the servings don’t have to be completely equal. No one will complain if they get an eighth of an ounce more or less dessert.” If I was a believer in sun-sign astrology, I could respond it is my Libra personality balancing the scales.

I was raised to be fair. My mother told me a story of two young Chinese “boys.” She called them that. She was sixty-something; they were probably my age at the time, early twenties.

“They were giggling and I asked what was so funny. ‘The cafeteria lady made a big mistake, gave me a twenty in change for a five. Ha, Ha.” I told them that wasn’t fair. That cashier would have to make up that money at the end of the day. ‘No, no’ they said. ‘good luck for me, bad luck for her.’ I told them that wasn’t how we did things in America and sent them back to the cafeteria.”

I remember this for what my mother instilled in me and for the perhaps Chinese-American cultural differences,  but certainly diverging ideas of fairness:

• accept that luck smiles or frowns upon each of us or
• go out of your way not to injure someone by your actions.

Leaders wrestle with fairness all the time, but what does fairness really mean?

Does it mean everything is shared equally?

Do we believe that workers should share in profits at the same rate as financiers or shareholders? Not in most of the companies where I have worked.

We say we believe that two people who do the same work should be paid equally. Of course, we often fail at that standard. In the United States, women are often paid less than men. People of color are often paid less than white people.

Ability isn’t shared equally, some would say, so why should remuneration be equally distributed. Fairness is about relative contribution.

This is the argument for sports and entertainment star salaries, for sales vs. production worker salaries, and for 300/1 ratios CEO vs. lowest paid worker. We seem to forget that no one on a team, in a movie, or in a business does work entirely on their own. Other people make it possible for a company to grow, a sales quota to be exceeded,  a team to win or a movie to do well at the box office.

In some places seniority is rewarded. If I have worked here longer than you, I am presumed to be better at my job and am worth more. Also, perhaps we are rewarding loyalty. Is loyalty a component of fairness?

“He has a family to support!” This is need-based fairness. It justified paying men more than women for the same work. With so many women working, does anyone try this excuse now?

Fairness, at least pay equity, should be understood as an often subjective evaluation. What someone’s contribution is, the work that they do, their need, or the value of loyalty, is often colored by how much we like or identify with the person. We rationalize unfairness away.

What’s a fair price?

I remember at the London Business School, a professor said, “For some of you, especially those from this country and the United States, it may shock you to learn that the price is never just the price. In most of the world, everything is negotiable.”

Businesses price the same product or service differently all the time. There are volume discounts, preferred customer discounts, loss leader pricing, clearing last year’s inventory pricing and competitive-market-share-grabbing pricing. To keep this fair some government regulators of some products penalize “predatory pricing,” e.g., consistently selling below cost to drive competitors out of a market. “That’s not fair!’ They say “You must have a ‘level playing field,” perhaps a reference to early football matches played where the home pitch had a pitch.

More fairness phrases:

“First come, first served” is something we’ve come to expect at a Deli, but accept that restaurant walk-ins may be second to those with advance reservations.

“To the victor belong the spoils.” This is a concept we seem to accept in politics, war. and increasingly in economics. But is it fair? It seems a “might makes right” extension. There are vast inequities in basics like food and housing around the world because some countries won the economic game. There are vast inequities in opportunity because some people have “a leg up” from their parents and ancestors.

“They’re the job creators,” say those making the contribution fairness argument for billionaires.  The United States is arguably the richest country in the world and some have more money than they could spend in ten lifetimes while others struggle with sustenance and shelter. How I feel about three or five hundred to one income ratios depends upon the one; if the one is “enough,” then I am more sanguine about the excess than if the one is hungry and homeless.

What’s a fair deal?

Transactions are often seen as fair or not. “He takes and takes, but never gives anything back.” Often our idea of fairness involves reciprocity. Even in relationships if we give, we expect to receive. I saw a TV program recently where a woman explained to a man, “When someone opens up to you and tells a story about their past, becomes vulnerable, the only acceptable response is to tell a story about your past and exchange a similar openness and vulnerability. It’s only fair. And to not do that is insincere and insulting.”

I once chided a boss of mine in a similar way for his reluctance to self-disclose. Later my daughter sent me an email distribution with funny stories about first jobs.  I passed it along to the office including my boss. He responded that his first job “was drowning bagged kittens in the creek. I was paid  25 ¢ a kitten.” Unfortunately, he selected “reply all.”

My daughter stopped sending me email distributions from her friends and I stopped encouraging my boss to reciprocate in self-disclosure.

“One good turn deserves another” is a phrase that expresses the expectation of reciprocity. Or some say “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours,” although that one often describes a reciprocal arrangement that implies kickbacks and corruption.

Fairness in change

Leaders often puzzle through fairness when things change. Who gets the ax in lay-offs? Who receives the opportunity of a new product division? Who opens a new geographic territory? How do you staff or choose IT systems between one company and another in a merger? What do you tell people and when as you plan through change?

Perceived fairness involves trust. People must trust that leaders will make the right decision and that the process will be fair, that is take in all appropriate input, and be communicated as needed.

Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, professors at INSEAD, and co-authors of Blue Ocean Strategy, wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review, called “Fair Process: Managing in the Knowledge Economy.”

In the article they show that people, especially knowledge workers, expect to be involved in the process of decisions that affect them. They demonstrate that even if people approve of the outcome of a decision, they may resist if they believe that the process was not fair and visible.

Kim and Mauborgne suggest three actions:

• Engagement, gathering input from people for decisions that affect them.
• Explanation, explaining the factors considered in making a decision.
• Expectation clarity, explicitly conveying actions that the decision requires of people.

Transparency is now a buzzword in business and politics. People now want to know what is going on. The simple truth is that not every decision can be completely transparent at every stage. Companies want to protect sensitive strategic information. Governments want to protect national security information. But if the business or government keeps secrets that affect people’s lives, but don’t involve such risks, trust erodes.

Mergers make people nervous. They know that layoffs or material job changes may result. One of the best post-merger integration leaders I ever saw understood this. He took several actions:

• He publicly committed to communicate “What we know when we know it.”
• He created a rumor hot line where people could anonymously record a rumor they’d heard and there would be a public response within twenty-four hours.
• He committed to gather input and explain any hiring or job change decisions with those affected.
• He committed to severance and outsourcing for displaced persons who could not be redeployed.

This leader stuck to these commitments and while some people lost their jobs and others’ jobs changed radically, there were no lawsuits, no work stoppages nor strikes from the unions, and the integration of the two companies happened on schedule. One laid-off manager later told me,

“I didn’t like it, but the company treated me fairly. They helped me find another job, and I didn’t suffer too much in the process.”

As a young consultant I worked behind a grizzled old management consultant twenty years my senior. In a meeting with a CEO his age, this Old Hand advocated that the CEO communicate more, explain his reasons for his decisions. The CEO took umbrage.

“This isn’t a Democracy!” he fumed.

The Old Hand smiled and spoke softly. “It is true that a business is not a democracy, but it still requires the ‘consent of the governed.’”

The CEO’s gray eyes widened at first, then he looked at his desk and breathed in through flared nostrils and out through puffed lips.

“That’s fair,” he said. Then the two discussed a communication plan as I took notes.

So life isn’t fair, but people can be, and leaders should strive for a visible fair process.

 I used to book Wo Fat

“ You have been so helpful, Mr. Culler. It isn’t a paid engagement, but it looks to be quite close to where you are, and I wonder if you might attend. I will speak briefly after the play. It won’t be my usual talk, but perhaps we could meet afterwards, and attach faces to voices so to speak.”

In 1973 I was a college lecture circuit booking agent. In recent months, I’d had success selling engagements for Khigh Alx Dhiegh, the actor who played the villain Wo Fat on the CBS TV series Hawaii Five-O. Dr. Dhiegh was also the founder of the Taoist Sanctuary in Hollywood. I pitched the combination of villain and sage to several student and staff lecture chairmen and secured several dates in my northeast territory.

Dr. Dhiegh had a memorable recurring role as the Chinese intelligence officer and local gangster kingpin, the antagonist to Jack Lord’s Detective Captain Steve McGarrett. Wo Fat always slipped away while McGarrett arrested gang underlings, closing the show with his signature phrase, “Book ‘em Danno.”

Dr. Dhiegh also had a theology doctorate and only charged $1000 + expenses; that seemed to make everyone happy so I arranged seven or eight speaking engagements that year and Dr. Dhiegh was catching on in other agent’s territories as well.

A few weeks before Easter that year, Khigh Dhiegh called me out of the blue and I check to see that we didn’t owe him money before I called him back.

“I wrote a play called Redbeard. It is about the key role of Judas in the Christian story of the resurrection. Most Christians have learned tha Judas was the ultimate evil, but without him Jesus would never have been apprehended, nor crucified and there would have been no sacrifice for the souls of humanity.”

“Dr. Dhiegh, that’s fascinating, but you are applying an Eastern viewpoint to Western Theology.” I blurted out.

“Yes. It is what I do” I could almost hear him smile.

“A graduate school colleague teaches comparative religions at Boston College (BC), which I believe is near you. Father Paul has staged Redbeard for a single performance in two weeks and I am hoping that you might come to see it.”

Boston College was close to where I worked, but about thirty-five miles from my home and I didn’t relish staying in town for a 7:00 p.m. play with lecture following, but I also didn’t feel I could decline the invitation. Dr. Dhiegh offered as many tickets as I wanted for my wife or the other agents at the agency. Everyone demurred.

On performance night, I ate at the McDonald’s near the BC campus, found a parking place for my old red Volvo 122 and walked on the campus, slightly aghast at the handbills on lampposts “Wo Fat ToNite!”

Redbeard, the play

I remember the theatre, a chapel, was small,  but full and the show began on time. I was surprised at that, but later thought “BC is a Jesuit school.” A priest with a slight Irish accent welcomed everyone.

“Hello I’m Father Paul Paor that’s pronounced like “power of the gospel” but spelled with the old Gaelic spelling P-A-O-R, but you can call me Father P as most students do. I am so pleased to see so many here tonight, including my entire comparative religion class, but, of course, it’s required for them. The rest of you lot are probably Hawaii Five-O fans. Rest assured the playwright Dr. Dhiegh or Wo Fat as you think of him will speak after the play. But without further delay Redbeard.”

I don’t remember too much about the production. It was more of a rehearsed reading, street clothes and no beards on the all-male cast. There were some spotlights highlighting Jesus and Judas. It was quite talky. There was a Last Supper scene,  some soliloquies, and aa Garden of Gethsemane scene. What was clear was that Jesus and Judas were quite close and colluded on the “betrayal.” Judas was the most devoted disciple and believed that he was bringing on the kingdom of heaven for all mankind. The play ended when Judas understood that others did not see his role as he intended. The bag of washers (“thirty pieces of silver”) hit the floor, Judas looks pained and the lights went out.

I remember the audience (including me) being a little stunned. Applause was a little slow in starting but grew to a respectable level as the lights came up and Father P and Wo Fat walked on stage..

Q&A

Dr. P started to speak. “Khigh, Dr. Dhiegh, I have so many questions, but I wonder if you’d start by saying why you chose to portray the Easter story in this way?”

Dr. Dhiegh began.

“Aristotle confused Western thinking for all time when he created the idea of absolutes. Black and White, Good and Evil. If we look into nature there is the tooth and claw, survival of the fittest, but it is balanced by symbiosis, flying insects drink flower nectar and pollinate all that grows, and the oxpecker bird feeds on harmful insects on the water buffalo’s back.

“Judas was a man. I wondered at his intentions as a man. I wondered at the results of his actions. Christianity has lived on for almost two thousand years.

“Christians believe Jesus is God. How could an all knowing God not stop Judas’s action? So if Judas is balance, if Judas is a negative action that brings a positive result, isn’t that relationship symbiotic?”

Dr. Dhiegh went on about the play for a while more. Then he started a thread form his normal college talk. He described a famous Chinese painting “The Three Vinegar Tasters.” Today this part of the speech would be on PowerPoint with pictures of the painting as it was reproduced in many Asian Cultures. Dr. Dhiegh had no slides but from his words I could see the three tasters.

One taster has a sour expression on his face. ”Life is sour  Confucius believed. Everything decays and rules are needed to slow the degeneration of man. The second taster is Buddha who wears a pained expression because life is pain and suffering, tests to be overcome on a path to Nirvana or enlightenment. The third taster is Lao Zi, a Taoist like me,  Lao Zi smiles because he tastes the sweetness in the world that balances the vinegar. We can choose which of these worldviews to hold or we can believe, as the artist might have, that life is all three.”

After talking Dr. Dhiegh took questions.

“Was Jack Lord really a control freak?” “Mr. Lord is the executive producer of Hawaii Five-o he has many details to be concerned with on top of his role. He has been instrumental in hiring native Hawaiian actors and has always treated me with respect.”

“Did you play Oddjob in Golfinger?” “No, that actor is a much younger man.”

“How do you reconcile playing villains with your religion?”   Here I would have lost it  “Really? Haven’t you been listening?”

Dr. Dhiegh just said “Without conflict, there is no story. The villain is instrumental.”

Dr Dhiegh’s advice to himself

After seeing the play I continued to book Dr. Dhiegh for a while as did other agents. He continued to do engagements to good reviews, but 1973 was his best year in my territory and we spoke less frequently. Much later, after his death in 1991, I learned that Khigh Alx Dhiegh, was born Kenneth Dickerson. In his later life he opened a Taoist sanctuary in Tempe Arizona  and promoted global citizenship.

After the silly questions about US Chinese relations (“I’m an American actor and don’t feel qualified to comment on that.”), Father P closed the questioning down with another question. “Dr. Dhiegh, what advice do you have for these young people?”

He smiled. “it is not for the old to advise the young. Our impatience comes from different sources. The advice I would give to myself is. . .

• Be slower to judge

• Strive for harmony and

• Appreciate balance, “

Good advice for any leader or follower, I think.