Ditch the Golden Rule: This Isn't About You
When I hear, "I have respect for everyone, I treat everyone how I want to be treated," I have to admit, I cringe a little. While the "Golden Rule," or "treat others how you want to be treated," sounds lovely in theory, it can miss the mark. The intended values at the core of the Golden Rule are respect, humanity, and empathy, but it centers the wrong person. While the good intentions are there, a positive impact is not guaranteed. Instead, I propose ditching the Golden Rule for the "Platinum Rule," or "treat others how they want to be treated." I believe the Platinum Rule is particularly important as we work to foster spaces of belonging as part of office culture, especially for folks who have been historically excluded from those spaces for so long.
I landed on this thought again after watching a video from Tiffany Freud (she/her) talking about Disability Pride Month. She mentioned that she may need to do things differently from others as a person with a disability. As someone with a different lived experience from Tiffany (and even if there are some commonalities), my needs, wants, or values could be different from hers. Tiffany has figured out what works for Tiffany to be successful and that is where we should be spending our energy supporting her. Spending my time treating Tiffany, or anyone else, through the lens of the Golden Rule and not the Platinum Rule could waste energy and potentially cause damage.
I believe the Golden Rule can be the culprit when culture conflicts happen in organizations filled with "well-intentioned" leaders driven by personal missions like the Golden Rule or simply being "nice." “Nice” is defined by Dictionary.com as “pleasing; agreeable; delightful”, while “kind” is defined as “having, showing, or proceeding from benevolence.” Kelly Shi, the Hackworth Fellow at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, talks about the difference between being nice versus being kind,
"It seems that while 'nice' and 'kind' carry positive connotations, only the latter indicates an ethical significance. It seems that they do not have to be mutually inclusive, either. Perhaps not every action coming from a place of benevolence has a pleasing effect. For example, imagine that you have to break some bad news to a good friend of yours. While the news is almost guaranteed to displease your friend, you know that the information will help them in the long run. In such a situation, breaking the news to your friend can be considered a kind action, but not necessarily a nice one."
When we prioritize being nice over being kind, or the Golden Rule over the Platinum Rule, we forget intent does not equal impact. Mike Antonacci over at The Mighty articulated the challenge of well-intentioned individuals having a negative impact in an article about ableism,
"So let’s say you decide to confront them on one of these comments. What you’re doing is telling them it had a bad impact on you. Unfortunately, what they hear is you telling them they had bad intent, so they respond by defending their character against your unfair accusation... At this point in the conversation, a subtle shift has occurred: the two of you are now talking about two different things. You are talking about their bad impact. They are talking about their good intent... That’s why you end up talking past each other. That’s why it seems like these conversations don’t go anywhere."
Following the Platinum Rule can help to bridge diverse cultures, recognizing that the norms, preferences, and practices of communities vary across the globe. MIT Media Lab designed an experiment in 2024 called Moral Machine, a game-like platform with different variations of the “trolley problem.” The trolley problem is a hypothetical philosophical dilemma used to discuss ethics. In the classic scenario, you see a runaway trolley about to hit and kill five people, but you have a lever that could divert the trolley to only hit one person. What would you do? If the one person was a child or a relative, would you change your mind?
The Moral Machine crowdsourced 40 million decisions and provided "insight into the collective ethical priorities of different cultures....making it one of the largest studies ever done on global moral preferences." (MIT Technology Review)
A new paper published in Nature presents the analysis of that data and reveals how much cross-cultural ethics diverge on the basis of culture, economics, and geographic location. The researchers found that countries’ preferences differ widely, but they also correlate highly with culture and economics. For example, participants from collectivist cultures like China and Japan are less likely to spare the young over the old—perhaps, the researchers hypothesized, because of a greater emphasis on respecting the elderly.
A simple example is hugging or physical touch: I enjoy when family, friends, and colleagues come to me with open arms for a big hug; but I know people who would be horrified by a hug from anyone outside their home unit. Thinking of my own needs, wants, and values in how I want to be treated would lead to me greeting this person with a hug, and that’s not what they want. As the MIT study suggests, some of these preferences are cultural and can contribute to discontent in organizations.
At the end of the day, whatever you call it: We need to de-center ourselves, check egos, build relationships, have conversations, and most importantly, listen to those around us.
-Victoria Marie Fernandez, MPA
Co-Founder & Fund Manager
