Six Pillars of Character

¶ … Boston Beans The six pillars of character indicate that Lyndell has a few issues. The first is with respect to trustworthiness. Lyndell is not supposed to leave work early -- he is expected by his bosses to be there the entire time. It is his responsibility to be there, and he is abdicating that responsibility, and clearly has not considered the consequences. Forget the Japanese tourists -- Cindie working by herself could be a target for a robbery.

On these measures of the six pillars alone, Lyndell is failing with respect to his character. Kohlberg's stages of moral development are another framework by which Lyndell's actions can be evaluated. Lyndell seems maybe like a stage 2, where he recognizes that there is not just one authority or rule. But he has struggled to progress into stages 3 and 4, wherein he would have to show consideration for others, and maintain the social order. He definitely struggles with the last two levels.

He is not even capable of just following the rules to make sure things run smoothly (stage 4). 2. Under this circumstance, I would reflect on the reality that I am not an alcohol counsellor, and that if I let him avoid the consequences of his drinking, I would be enabling his alcoholism. One of the six pillars of character -- the one that Lyndell is already struggling with -- is character. I am not in a position to help Lyndell, and certainly not if Lyndell is unwilling to help himself.

Further, my safety is at risk, closing a store by myself late at night. Cindie is likely to show compassion, but that should not override the fact that she is not in a position to help Lyndell here. She puts herself at risk, and she would be shirking her duty to the store, and to her employers, not to mention she would not be doing Lyndell any favors to facilitate his drinking.

Compassion and enabling are not the same thing -- the compassionate thing is to get Lyndell's problem dealt with, even if that means that he gets fired. Better people have been fired from better jobs. If Lyndell was a closer personal friend, that would complicate the answer, but the answer would still have to be no. Friends have an even greater obligation to look out for one another, and when Lyndell leaves to have his drink, he is not performing his duty of care as a friend for Cindie. 3.

The store manager is going to have an absolute rule about shouting at customers, so Cindie is probably going to be fired. The thing about this rule is that it will be absolute, with no room for moral flexibility. The company simply cannot afford it -- that customer goes to the manager, maybe the next one gets on Yelp. You can't have that. The manager should still investigate before any action is taken. Look at the video, and talk to the witnesses, one of whom would theoretically be Lyndell.

He is, after all, the supervisor on duty. At that point, with Lyndell knowing nothing and with the video not showing Lyndell as present, the buck would stop with him. Cindie may only be suspended for the incident, but the acting supervisor not being present to resolve a dispute with the customer is going to violate a lot more imperatives.