The Road to Collaboration: Lessons from Merging Traffic

Introduction:

Driving a car can teach us valuable lessons about life, including the importance of collaboration. Merging onto a busy highway is a prime example of how working together, rather than asserting dominance, can lead to smoother traffic flow and a more pleasant experience for everyone involved. In this blog post, we'll explore three important lessons we can learn from merging traffic: the situational nature of merging, the benefits of collaboration, and how collaboration reduces stress.

Merging: A Lesson in Situational Dependence

Merging onto a highway can be compared to making ethical decisions, as both situations require careful consideration of context. Just as there is no one-size-fits-all approach to ethics, the best way to merge is situationally dependent.

Consider a long on-ramp that allows for merging over a significant distance. Some drivers merge immediately, while others wait until the end of the merge lane. Which approach is correct? It depends on the circumstances. When traffic is light and there's ample space, merging when safe is ideal. However, in heavy traffic where it's stop-and-go, going to the end and using the zipper merge technique is more efficient.

Why does this matter? It ensures that people behind you have the opportunity to enter the merge lane as well. By using all available space, you maximize everyone's chance to merge smoothly. So, when you merge at the end of the lane during slow-moving traffic, it's a collaborative act. This collaboration keeps traffic moving, even if slowly. Refusing to let others merge causes unnecessary stops and delays for everyone involved.

Collaboration Yields the Best Results

Driving teaches us that collaboration often leads to the best outcomes. In merging, it's a shared effort to keep traffic flowing. When we work together, following the zipper merge or simply allowing others to merge, we maintain a steady flow of traffic. This collaboration benefits everyone on the road.

When we view driving as a collective effort rather than a competition, we create an environment where everyone can reach their destination safely and efficiently. Your willingness to collaborate makes the road a better place for all.

Collaboration Reduces Stress and Makes a Chore Enjoyable

Think about how stressful it is when you're stuck behind a line of cars at a standstill, all because someone refused to let others merge. It's frustrating for everyone involved. Now, imagine a different scenario, one where people are courteous and collaborative. Traffic still moves slowly, but there's less tension, and the chore of commuting becomes more enjoyable.

When you let others merge, you're not only making their journey smoother but also contributing to your own sense of calm. Solidarity on the road breeds collaboration and reduces stress. We're all in this together, and when we acknowledge that, the road becomes a friendlier and less stressful place.

Conclusion:

The lessons learned from merging traffic extend far beyond the highway. We can apply these principles to various aspects of our lives, emphasizing the importance of context-dependent decision-making, collaboration, and reducing stress through cooperation.

Applying the lessons of collaboration and situational awareness from merging traffic to humanistic management is crucial for creating more effective and empathetic workplace environments. Humanistic management recognizes that different situations and individuals require tailored approaches. Just as merging strategies depend on traffic conditions, ethical and management decisions should consider the specific context and the diverse needs of employees. Embracing collaboration in leadership fosters a culture where employees are valued, teamwork is encouraged, and individual strengths are leveraged for the collective good. Just as collaboration reduces stress on the road, it can reduce workplace stress, enhance job satisfaction, and ultimately lead to more successful and harmonious organizations. In humanistic management, as on the highway, the mantra remains the same: good things happen when we collaborate and consider the context.

So, next time you find yourself behind the wheel, remember that the road is a shared space where collaboration and consideration lead to better outcomes for everyone. Just as letting others merge helps keep traffic moving, embracing collaboration in our daily lives can lead to smoother journeys and more positive outcomes. It's a lesson well worth heeding: good things happen when we collaborate.

What are the shortcomings of Humanism?

There are 2 things about the philosophy people have difficulty with. And these are things most Humanists consider essential.

The first is that it is a secular philosophy. The second is that ours is a situational ethic.

Lots of people believe in supernatural things. Humanists, reject supernaturalism as an ineffective unproven field of inquiry. If something happens, you can prove it happens. There is no need to appeal to supernaturalism. People who like thinking in supernatural terms, don’t like this aspect of the philosophy.

But for Humanists, the rejection of supernaturalism and our focus on all things secular, is critical to the practice of our philosophy. We are mostly concerned with solving our real problems here and now. Appeals to supernaturalism don’t help us with that. In fact, in many cases, they make solving the problem impossible. Our focus on secular matters and rejection of supernatural - is pragmatic.

The other area people have problems with is that we approach ethics situational-ly. Our value system is based on compassion. Our goal is to do the most good and the least harm - in any given situation. There are no hard and fast rules. Our ethics requires active thinking, critical thinking and a willingness to make difficult decisions.

There are many people who prefer absolute ethics - where you have a rule that is always applied, but we humanists view that as an unrealistic ideal. In the real world, our values compete with each other. For instance, it’s not ok to kill someone. But what if killing that person would save thousands of lives? There is a great quote in the Hindi movie Faana. I’m going to paraphrase. Morality isn’t about choosing between good or evil. It’s about choosing between the greater of two goods or the lesser of two evils. Every situation is different and we are called on to make difficult decisions where the “right” solution that will do the most good and least harm - isn’t clear. Humanists view situation ethics as essential precisely because we understand we live in the real world - where what is “good” isn’t always clear and because - we are willing to do the hard work of thinking through those problems to come to a “good” solution and because we accept the responsibility to do this - is ours.

Every Rule Has an Exception

Doesn’t matter how good the rule is – every rule has an exception.

Rules are useful. They help us figure out how to get things done and they help us know what to expect and give order to our lives.

But rules can also be oppressive and if a rule no longer works or causes harm, it’s time to rethink it.
Obviously – the graphic above is tongue in cheek, but it does make a good point. Don’t be such a stickler for the rules that you ignore important life saving information.

Nothing is inherently immoral

The only immorality is not to do what one has to do when one has to do it. Jean Anouilh

Humanist ethics are situational ethics. And this makes a lot of people nervous. But it shouldn’t.

Humans all value the same things – for the most part. We value justice, compassion, and responsibility for instance. Studies have shown that there is indeed a common set of widely held human values.

Where these values come from is a matter of debate, obviously. But to me, as a pragmatist, I’m less interested in why we have these values than on how we apply them.  This is why I’m an advocate of situational ethics.

The reality we all face is that while we share common human values, those values are often in conflict with one another. Also, as individuals, given our personal experiences and beliefs, we may value some values higher then we value others.  We are constantly weighing our values to come to what we think are ethical decisions. Even if we don’t realize we do this – we are.

All situational ethics is, is an explicit acknowledgement of the reality of how we humans go about making moral decisions. The reason we do this is so that we can more effectively balance our moral values when making decisions.  We do this because it seems to yield better more moral decisions as judged by the real world effects of our decisions. We do less harm inadvertently when  we take such an explicit approach BECAUSE we considered the possibility that we might do harm while trying to do good.

Let that sink in for a moment. We might do harm while trying to do good. It doesn’t matter what your morality is or how it is based. If you aren’t willing to consider this possibility that you might accidentally do harm while trying to do good and you aren’t willing to think through how you might do the most good with the least harm, then you aren’t doing moral reasoning right.

I started this essay by saying nothing is inherently moral. But that doesn’t mean that anything goes. It just means you have to THINK through the potential consequences of your actions before taking action to insure your decisions are good and moral and will do the most good and least harm.

And this brings us back to the topic of leadership. Want to be a good moral and just leader?  Take the time to think through your actions to ensure you actually do good because good intentions aren’t enough. They never are.  Moral reasoning is hard. Put some effort into it.

Learn more about how to make more moral decisions with Planning for Personal Success – online course - https://humanistlearning.com/planforpersonalsuccess/

To cheat or not to cheat

You can win by cheating,
but at what cost?

Obviously – I am a Humanist – so I am not inclined to cheat as I view it as not only an ineffective way to accomplish my objectives, it would also likely cause me more trouble than just pursuing my objectives honestly.

However, my friend Kent responded to one of my posts about why not to cheat in school by saying he disagreed.

“Consider the business cheat - he/she robs those that are honest by stealing money from customers, suppliers, and from competing business.  Consider the tax cheat - those honest pay more in taxes as a result.  The person that cheats at cards robs his fellow players. ... They cheat because it works.  Why invent time and effort into something when you can talk short cuts? Only those that understand the effect of their behavior on others can understand why we can't cheat, and must play fair.”

And, well, I agree with him. My original post was limited to the subject of education. That’s the problem with writing short posts. They can’t possibly be totally inclusive of all possible situations. Humanism is a situational ethic and so, different situations require their own ethical analysis.  

Kent is quite right – cheating in most situations does indeed hurt other people. The reason good people don’t cheat is because they understand the negative effect it will have on others and being the compassionate people they are, they don’t want to cause others harm.

However, there is still an additional self-serving reason not to cheat. It is this reason that I teach my son.  Cheating makes other people not want to have anything to do with you. If he cheats at monopoly for instance, I stop, get up and leave. He can win that way – but not really since I refuse to finish the game with him. What I want him to learn is that the best way to win is to win honestly. First: cheating victories aren’t very satisfying because you didn’t earn them. But even more important than winning is your social relationships. If you want people to like and trust you, you have to play fair. 

Image: Card by Luigi Diamanti -  FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Don’t put that in your mouth. Unless …

Ok - so, I am the mom of a 5 yr old and the other day he put a bunch of pennies in his mouth. He didn’t have a good reason why he did that, though he did say they tasted horrible. Like any good mom, I made up a new rule. If it isn’t food, it doesn’t belong in your mouth. Simple enough. Self-evident. Easy to follow and easy to understand. No exceptions. Right?

Wrong. My sister kindly pointed out that toothbrushes and toothpaste are not food, yet, they do indeed belong in your mouth. So, there you have it. No rule, no matter how simple or how obvious or how much you agree with it is absolute. They all have valid exceptions.

Why am I bringing this up? Because Humanism is all about personal ethics and ethics are nothing more then a set of rules to help you be a better more moral person. The problem is that many people treat ethical rules as if they are absolute when they aren’t. Humanists understand that all ethics are situational. Meaning that even if a rule is good, there are times when you need to break it to do the right thing. For instance, if you don’t occasionally put non-foodstuff in your mouth, like a toothbrush, your teeth will eventually fall out.

Situational-ly Speaking

I love facebook. Have lots of cool conversations with friends and folks on there. One of my friends posed a question. Are there any rules you are willing to break? The very question assumes that ethics are situational. My response was that yeah – of course I break rules all the time. I just have a personal rule that I only break rules if there is a good reason and no harm will come from me breaking that rule. So, yes, I do my best to follow all the traffic laws.

Another person agreed with me but came up with this mini rule list because let’s face it – 10 commandments are just too many. For this individual you can sum up how to be a good person in 4 easy steps.

1) Harm None
2) Pursue Happiness
3) Be excellent to each other and....
4) Party on dude!

He then had to explain that while harm none seems really easy it does have gray areas that in practice need to be thought about. Like, if harming one saves the lives of thousands - is it then ok to harm one? Don’t you just love situational ethics? They force you think. But that isn’t a bad thing.