StoriesThatLift - Blog

Principle - Your personal integrity takes a lifetime to build and only a few minutes to loose.  Many people will judge you entirely on your integrity.

Living in a small farming and ranching community was not easy for a forest ranger in the 1960s. Tremendous pressure was being placed on the Forest Service to reduce grazing on public lands. Of course, every animal that was removed from public land reduced the potential wealth and income of a local rancher. Quig was well aware of the implications. He was also keenly aware of the responsibility of the Forest Service to act as a wise steward of the public land.

Quig wrestled with the mandate from above to reduce grazing, searching for the most fair way to implement change. Studies and analyses preceded unpopular decisions. In each instance Quig would take personal responsibility to meet with those affected, explaining the outcome of studies and proposing an implementation process that Quig would personally administer. Even as kids of the ranger we often got chastised for reductions that were painful. Through these very difficult and stressful times we were often left to sit alone at church or given unwelcome stares. Quig never wavered in his resolve to implement the reductions he felt had been demonstrated as needed, but in a caring way.

Quig’s patience was tried but never broken. On one occasion his supervisor was asked to testify in court about a proposed grazing reduction. Through a series of phone calls, letters, and personal meetings, Quig was assured that his supervisor was supportive of the proposed grazing cuts. In the courtroom the antithesis of integrity was on display by Quig’s supervisor. When asked if he supported Quig’s actions he responded that he had no idea why Quig was proposing the reductions. This was quite possibly the greatest test that Quig faced in his employment with the Forest Service. Never had he been on the receiving end of such a blatant display of dishonesty. With the court case lost and Quig’s authority damaged, he had to decide whether to remain as ranger or look to move on.

The painful weeks that followed seem to awaken a new resolve in Quig. He determined to focus on those decisions that he could ensure would be implemented. He did not back away from difficult decisions but he weighed the potential outcomes and worked even harder with permittees to get common understanding on change and outcomes.

We were taught that a handshake and a verbal commitment should be as strong as a notarized contract. If we say we will do something, the expectation was there that we wouild follow through. This was an expectation that need not be articulated for every deicison. I think this is why the kitchen table was a place where disappointment was expressed, parent to child. My children recall often times that the white board, rather than the kitchen table, was the place to discuss commitments and let downs. Our oldest son, Damion, sent us a card not long ago that highlighted the phrase “I think it’s time for the white board.” Even after 30+ years those messages apparently still ring for him.

Just as Quig learned that not everyone will operate with integrity, I too had to learn this lesson. In a highly visible, politically charged setting, I learned this. In the ICBEMP there was a small group that held strategy sessions regarding next steps and pending processes. I learned that what most see as lies, some politicians view as merely a necessary piece of communication to achieve an end.

In the ICBEMP I believed that we could put the internal plans together through internal meetings. I became clear that internal communications made their way to congressional staffers in Washington DC. The result was specific language in proposed legislation aimed at thwarting progress on the project. I confronted the person I thought was responsible for breach of trust, essentially saying that there was no way Congress could have gotten the information if it hadn’t been supplied him/her. I had anticipated that the person would admit to sharing the confidential information and offer an explanation of why it was the right thing to do. I was surprised when he/she adamantly denied sharing inside information and put on quite a seen that I would challenge his/her integrity.

To make a long story short, the individual did confess later that he/she had been sharing the inside discussions with congressional staffers. It took me some significant time to get used to working in such an environment. I came to realize that, at least some define integrity by the ability to achieve outcomes with no apparent regard for the means required to achieve it. I have come to call this “political integrity”. I suspect some will take offense to this label, but I seemed to witness it most often in the political setting. Individuals who practice this have the belief that they are operating with integrity. They will lie, stretch the truth, and work behind other’s backs to achieve their desired outcome. They will argue with veracity, that they are acting with integrity.

My personal values have been rooted in a definition of integrity that excludes “political integrity.” As a Program Manager, Assistant Station Director, and Station Director, I made it clear that I would not lie. If someone asked me a question that I felt was inappropriate to answer, I would respond with something approaching, “I know the answer to that question but this is not the time to answer it.” Another colleague of mine, Tom Harbour is fond of saying, “I know more than I can reveal.” These approaches do not create an atmosphere of secrecy or put forward a lie.

I had been on the receiving end of boss’s lies so often that I refused to lie.

It became a strength because my colleagues and employees knew that my words could be trusted. In any executive position you will, necessarily, need to develop strategies that have the possibility to close facilities, reduce staff, shift priorities, or move resources. It is also natural to expect employees, pundits, media, and detractors to seek information about future plans. There are appropriate times and methods to reveal this information. My commitment to telling the truth required a response to direct questions. My answer sometimes began with “I know the answer to your question and will respond to it directly when the time is right.”

Let me contrast that with the approach of the research station I worked at for many years. We were actively engaged in a collaborate program called the Oregon Range Evaluation Project. To successfully complete this project required funding commitments from all three branches of the Forest Service. Over a period of 5 years, the National Forest System and State and Private Forestry had faithfully included their share of the funding within the President’s outyear budget. Just as consistently, the Research and Development budget had not included funding for the project. Each year during the budget cycle, local political forces had to mount considerable effort to get the R&D funding included in the appropriation. Those of us working in the EVAL project from the R&D side were consistently told that the Washington Office failed to include the funding for the project.

I began to believe that this story was not true. Jack Ward Thomas, my boss, a large man, and I made an appointment with Station leadership to pursue this issue. The Deputy Station Director and Assistant Station Director met with us. We were in a small conference room with a small conference table. I pursued hard to understand who it was that was pushing to have the EVAL R&D budget excluded from the President’s Budget. These two station leaders continued to stick to their story – the WO did it.

I had witnessed enough to believe that it was rare that the WO would take such an action if not first proposed and supported by the Station. I stood, leaned forward with my hands on the table and said “I think you are lying to us!” Jack put his hand through the back of my belt to keep me from going further toward the Deputy and Assistant Director. It was interesting to watch as both men stood up and stepped backwards a step. Then both said, practically in unison, “We recommended it to the WO, so I suppose we have been lying.” For five years these leaders had lied to us about the budget. At this point Jack pulled me backwards into my seat and he stood up. He was now the one leaning on the table with a glare that could kill toward our leaders.

In an instant, these leaders lost credibility with me and Jack. I witnessed many instances of lies being shared under all manner of excuses. It wasn’t until sometime later that I came to use the term “political intergrity” to explain how these leaders could sleep at night. I am quite confident that it was this incident of repeated lies that led Jack, once he became Chief of the Forest Service, to create a mantra from which he never strayed. - one of his main themes while Chief was to “Tell the truth.”

The trust that took years of working with individuals can be eroded in an instant. It took us along time before we felt we could trust these two leaders again. Even then, we would check out their stories with others to validate we were not being sold down a path of lies again.

I have witnessed so many times when leaders have failed to tell the truth. My son shared with me how a business owner in private industry failed to understand this principle. Rumors were spreading quickly that the business was for sale. The owner called a meeting of all employees and boldly announced that the business was not for sale. Rumors settled down some, but speculation continued that negotiations were underway with a potential buyer. In fact, it was less than a week before the business owner called another employee meeting, this time to introduce the new owner. Believing he was starting out on strong footing, the new owner announced that there would be no layoffs – beginning yet another round of lies. In his case, the speculation is that he used this lie in an effort to retain the best employees – knowing all along that he would reduce the overall workforce. I still use the term “political integrity” to cover the private industry leaders who exercise almost any means to achieve an outcome. These individuals mistakenly believe that others do not or will not recognize the lies as lies.

Don’t say “I don’t know” unless you really don’t know. That does not mean you have to reveal all you know in response to every question. I would routinely admit that I knew the answer to questions that I did know the answer to, and then state whether this was the appropriate time and place to let the information be known. I have worked with people who would simply make up an answer that would get them off the hook. Each time I witnessed this, my colleagues would lose a notch or two of my respect.

Executives don’t have to lie. I have worked for and with Tom Mills for several years. He was a long-time senior executive with the Forest Service. He worked in many different capacities of leadership. While he had a reputation for being tough to work for, it was because he demanded so much of his top employees. He dealt with many difficult situations and tough decisions. But though it all, I never knew him to lie. He had my respect and retained it even into retirement. He operated in the same regard as Quig when it came to personal integrity.

I have tried to live the principle of personal integrity – in my personal and professional life. My wife has developed a rather cynical view of politics – in all its forms. This includes the politics within the private industry, government, and elected offices. To her, the ends do not justify the means. If it can’t be done honestly, then it simply is not worth doing to her. I have grown to appreciate her stance more and more.

Bottom Line – When all is said and done, all we really have is our credibility. Our credibility is highly dependent on our personal integrity.