Do you know a middle school or high school student who has had a group project assigned, been told their individual grade is based on the group’s performance, and then been stuck in a group with the unavailable slacker who won’t do his part? If you’re a parent you know exactly what I mean. Your A or A/B student got her summary paragraphs done and e-mailed some photos to the person who was supposed to print things out for the presentation, or put together the PowerPoint. A night or two before the presentation, your child and the other two productive group members are scrambling to create the visual part of the project because the slacker can’t cowboy up.

The group project gets an 88 and the teacher says she’s being generous. Your child goes to talk to her and she says you have to learn to be part of a team in the real world so you have to learn to deal with team members who don’t perform. The grade stands.

I have friends who are teachers, but come on! What teacher works in the “real world?” Everything teachers do is micromanaged, including how long they spend in the restroom. They have no clue! In the “real world,” a slacker on a group project is removed quickly when the group speaks up together and tells the person who assigned the project which member isn’t performing. The group uses the authority and the concern of the person who assigned the project.

It would go something like this. “Hi, Karen. We’re 3 days out from needing to put finishing touches on that presentation you want for a week from Monday. Graphics hasn’t even returned first proofs that were due over 2 weeks ago. We’ve called, I’ve e-mailed, Joe’s gone down there, and we’ve tried everything that company policy allows. What do you suggest?”

Let’s see. In the “real world,” the project assigner needs it done so has a vested interest in the outcome. So…what does she say? a) “That’s your problem. You have to learn how to be part of a team. If that project’s not done right, it’ll be written up on all your records!” or b) “I’ll make a call right now. I’ll have them send you a schedule of when you will receive each stage of proofs. Let me know if it’s not in your inbox by 3:00.”

Social psychology has shown us that authority and accountability go hand-in-hand. If you give someone accountability for a task or responsibility for another person without the authority to take action, you create psychological stress. Over many years, you have a person who is repeatedly blamed and criticized for things that are out of his control. In the extreme, it can produce depression and even a psychotic break from reality.

If you give someone authority over a task or other people without any accountability—well, we all know where that leads. “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” When a person is free to do whatever he wants, it creates a sense of entitlement and superiority, known as narcissism.

For good outcome with tasks or leadership of people, the two have to be in balance. A person cannot direct a task or lead other people without authority. A person cannot produce consistently good results in a task or leadership of a group without accountability.

The clearest example I have of authority without accountability is soccer referees. My older son plays club soccer, which means we pay a large fee to have a professional coach who receives a salary for training and coaching the team. We also pay dues to the league that are very high, partly for fields, and partly for— the highest quality referees!

But here’s how the soccer organizations empower referees. The center ref, that’s the guy in the middle of the field, is a god. The guys with the flags on the sideline get to address the god, point their flag, and suggest calls, but the god can ignore them. Whatever he rules stands. If player A shoves player B from behind and player B hits the ground, then player A stumbles over the guy he shoved to the ground, the god can call a foul on the guy who was knocked down. The little fellow with the flag on the sideline can suggest to the god that it’s not a foul, but the god can ignore him. He can even eject the player from the game by giving him a red card.

Here’s the accountability system. (You can probably tell I’ve seen lots of times when accountability would have been useful.) First: a league will NEVER overrule a referee’s call on the field. Even if the line ref, who can be god (AKA center ref) in a different game, saw it clearly and is sure it was not a card, the player ejected has to sit out the rest of the current game and all of the next game. The referee who made the bad call? Well, the league will make a little note of the complaint on a form somewhere, and if they get lots of complaints they say they will probably not schedule him again. What they mean is they’ll try to make sure not to schedule him with the same team again for a while, but they’ll let him work plenty of other games.

The association that certifies refs only has to evaluate a person ONCE to qualify him or her to work at most levels. Once they’re certified, the leagues might evaluate them once a year or so, meaning an evaluator watches part (maybe one half of one half) of a game the ref is working and then gives him provocative questions and suggestions: “When that blue jersey kid ran over and slammed into the red jersey kid, you called a foul on the red jersey kid. What was it that you saw?” Then, of course, “the next time you see a player pulling someone’s jersey so hard the other player spins around, you might think about calling a foul.”

The leagues and the news media blame frustrated parents when they’re yelling at referees. But we have no legitimate place to take our concern. There is no venue for justice. There is no “right to assemble” and demand a better performance by referees, because the leagues’ default answer is ALWAYS the same: parents are biased and don’t know the game as well, so their complaints are invalid. Even when I’ve been watching the game before or after my son’s, with no emotional connection to the outcome, and have reported an atrocious call, I’ve heard that same excuse.

I once told a league official at a tournament that the out-of-state ref crews they brought in were very bad in all the games I saw, including many my son wasn’t playing in, and it affected the outcome of the tournament. He very sarcastically sneered and asked, “Are you trying to say referees can REALLY change the outcome of a game?” I looked at him with What kind of flake are you? written all over my face and said, “Of course they can!” He demanded that I go away and leave him alone.

I think people of weak character wear their authority like a protection from criticism to hide the fact that they are over their heads. I think there are so many instances where people in authority flaunt their power and use it to attack critics that many people are afraid that being in a position of authority will make them inherently evil. They avoid accepting leadership roles or try to overcompensate and lead by consensus, which is no leadership at all and is doomed to failure. They never really have the courage to take charge because they don’t see many role models of authority used well. I think the answer is to balance accountability and authority.

It’s a millennium-old idea from the first appearance of the legend of King Arthur. Civilization shifted its moral thinking from “Might is right” to “Might FOR right.” Power should only be wielded to enforce fair and just rules and to protect the weak, and power should only be given to those who will use it in that way, fully accountable to and in service to those they lead. Even on soccer fields.

Responsibility is the acceptance that my actions have consequences and my daily life uses up resources. It is the somber awareness that most of my actions affect other people, and that my actions within my family, my friendships, and my work will affect people who are interdependent on me. I am accountable to others who depend on me. My goal is to complete my assigned tasks fully, well, and on time so those counting on me are not let down. With those under my authority and care, I intend to be fair, compassionate, helpful, and approachable. There is a nobler word, DUTY, which evokes the importance of this responsibility to one another within a community or a society.

What a weird, paradoxical day it was in the news! Yesterday two windows focused the country on the deep and complicated wounds of racism and sexism.

Don Imus was removed from MSNBC (do they have any viewers left, now that they found the guy dead for weeks in his chair with MSNBC on? I think he was their audience, or at least half of it). CBS Radio has suspended Imus and is considering firing him. He decided it would be really funny to refer to young black women by the oldest, dumbest, smallest-minded insults around. He called them ugly. He called them scary and man-like. He called them sexually immoral. I guess he forget to throw in lazy — but it would be a hard joke to sell since the ladies were in the NCAA finals for women’s college basketball.

The defenses offered:

“What he said was racist, but I’ve known Don Imus a long time and he’s not a racist.” What??

“It all goes back to hip-hop culture, where it’s mainstream to talk about women that way.” Then why didn’t he say it about Rosie O’Donnell? or Hillary Clinton? or Barbara Bush? Or ROSIE O’DONNELL?

“Hey, I didn’t think insulting your genetic traits and lumping you in with crude stereotypes of your race would offend you! I was just joking, see?” That’s my paraphrase of Imus explaining himself.

“Don Imus is an ugly, freakish man with a grating voice, bushy hair, and a weird cowboy hat fetish, so what would you expect?” That’s actually my defense for him, which is no defense. And it’s a little foolish of me to criticize his voice and appearance, since I have a face made for radio and the perfect voice for a mime.

The paradoxical story: the North Carolina Attorney General dropped all charges against the three Duke lacrosse players accused of rape and kidnapping/imprisonment last year. The AG didn’t say, as expected, “There just isn’t sufficient evidence to go to trial,” or “The accuser’s statements are the basis of the case and have too many conflicts.” The AG actually said a careful study of the evidence indicated the accuser could not be believed and that the young men were innocent.

How do these things intersect? Imus, whether he is a racist or not (are we really still wondering?), bolstered the deep belief professed by a lot of African Americans that most whites are racist.

That’s the prevailing belief, true for some white people but not for all, that inflamed the political climate in Raleigh-Durham when the accusations were made. There was an immediate template of rich white kids at a private school in the bigoted south playing a blue-blood sport using black women as objects for their own pleasure.

The template said the kids thought they were untouchable and could do whatever they wanted, since they had a high-octane party and most were under age. The template said they were drunk and arrogant and brought the women in to “service” their needs and had no regard for the humanity of the strippers — er, dancers. The template said in bigoted Durham no white person would believe a black stripper would really say “no” to sex. The template said women have little power and men have a lot of power. The template said white men have all the power and black women have no power.

The template was wrong, or at least parts of it were. But it was rooted in centuries of dehumanization and sexual exploitation of black women by untouchable white men. And the players were certainly doing a good imitation of arrogant, rich white men who thought they could get away with breaking laws.

Did the DA get wrapped up in the racist, centuries-old template and let his heroic drive blind him to the facts? Not likely. He had an election coming up and knew he would be painted with the same brush — rich, untouchable white men protecting each other from the consequences of breaking the law — if he didn’t pursue the case.

So the result of the intersection is the ugliest truth of all. A rich, arrogant white man played on the frenzied fears and anger of a group of black voters to manipulate them into voting for him.

This does nothing to help people held down by racism in their community, or held back by calling themselves victims, blaming other people for their circumstances, and buying into the claim that they are helpless. This does nothing to end the remnants of racism or its effects. In fact, using racism for political gain makes it necessary to keep the anger and fear and division going instead of working to end them. That makes racism a valuable commodity to those whose power derives from it.

The Duke lacrosse players were childish, playing at being grown up by breaking rules to focus on self-gratification, drunkenness, and sexual urges. They didn’t deserve the emotional trauma of the past year, but they DID deserve serious consequences from the school for their actions, but that will be overlooked now. Their accuser was, apparently, a women with a lot of baggage in her life who turned her personal pain into an attack on people not directly responsible for her pain. She deserves compassion, but not a free pass to accuse people falsely. The DA was blinded, probably by his own lust for power, but he is likely to pay (no longer untouchable) when he faces the state bar.

What about Don Imus? He brings in a lot of money by being a jerk and a pig, so the decision about his future will not be based on morality or human dignity. It will boil down to whether they lose more money by keeping him and losing some sponsors, or lose more money by canceling his show.

And then there’s the Rutgers women’s basketball team. They are ladies of accomplishment, student-athletes doing well in college and performing at the top of their sport. They are the people with the highest character in these intersecting stories, but they received some of the harshest criticism, just for excelling — while being black women. They deserve our recognition, and our respect.

Respect is an acknowledgement of the inherent value in other people and of useful customs and traditions. Respect calls me to show consideration to others, deference to those in authority (especially if they have proven their leadership ability and are known to lead with integrity), and patience with ceremonies and traditions I do not understand or may not call my own. Respect does not prevent me from standing up for my rights or the rights of others, and it does not prevent me from questioning or even challenging a person’s behavior or a system’s rules. Respect compels me to challenge a person or organization when doing so is in the best interest of people treated unjustly, or in the best interest of equality and fairness. Respect does require me to challenge with humility and patience as much as possible.

So I was driving along Grapevine Highway with my 16-yr-old son in the car and we passed this new ice cream place, “Woolley’s.” Actually, it’s frozen custard, which I think means a little softer and a lot more fattening than ice cream.

I told him, “I finally got to try that place the other day when I took your little brother.”

He said, “I know you’ve been there. You took me. Remember?”

I explained that when I took him, I didn’t try the ice cream — er, frozen yogurt. I said something brilliant, like, “I know you know I’ve been there, but I didn’t try the ice cream. Remember?”

He figured from the way I was explaining how I finally went and tried the ice cream that I forgot I’d been there with him. I protested. How could I forget taking him there?

“Of course I remember taking you there. It was after we ate at the Chinese place when you got out of school early…” and so on. “I wouldn’t forget going there with you.”

Pause about three seconds.

Then I started to chuckle, and then laugh, and then laugh pretty hard.

I had remembered a friend of mine, Joe, who I met in college. After a couple of years seeing each other regularly at school, we maintained our friendship fairly well for a few more years even though we lived in different states. He loved movies and so did I. So one day I was telling him about a movie I’d seen in the past couple of months and said I thought he would like it. He said, “I’ve already seen it. With you!”

Of course, when he reminded me I remembered. We had seen it together when I was visiting.

The same thing happened again a few months later. Then again one other time.

Three times I suggested a movie to my friend, saying I had seen it and was sure he would like it. And he already had seen the movie because he was right there when I saw it.

After my laughter slowed and I was able to talk, I explained what a crummy friend I’d been by forgetting my friend was around — three times!

It seemed like the perfect introduction to the first on my list of qualities of character I value, because it will always be my beacon in the distance — way, way off in the distance.

Integrity is wholeness and consistency. It means your behavior flows from solid principles that focus on productive and interconnected lives in a healthy society. It is expressed by doing the right thing instead of the easy thing and by encouraging other to do the same. Integrity inspires trust.

So I used to worry when people would call me nice. I was sure that the truth would come out “sooner rather than later” and I would be exposed as a fraud. I would become the group pariah. Don’t get me wrong here. Being a pariah wasn’t my greatest fear, as you can imagine for someone who has a twisted sense of humor and tends to speak his mind too freely. I was worried about being considered a fraud, someone who represented himself as much better, much more pleasant—much “nicer”—than he really was.

I’ve gotten into arguments (the spoken, conversational style with modulated voices, not the yelling and slamming doors type) with people who said I was nice. I tried to debate them and prove how wrong they were. I would use “boldly honest” comments as evidence, which they would label “truthful.” I would point out my twisted humor and they would say I was “funny.” Each such conversation validated my own belief that the quality of a person is deeper than appearances and that the most interesting and most worthwhile aspects of a person are substantive and unique, not pleasant and agreeable. I realized I wasn’t the only person who preferred people with depth and strength and an interesting viewpoint over the “nice” people favored by an overwhelming majority (easily more than four out of five dentists surveyed).

Don’t get me wrong here. The idea of “nice” is, well—nice. But I have been disillusioned, discouraged, and disappointed by “nice” people too many times. I’ve seen people in groups congregate around the “nice” couple and heard the praise heaped on them. But when tough times come along for a group member the “nice” people pull back. They aren’t the ones offering help and encouragement. Instead they’re gossiping about personal failure and thanking God out loud that it’s not their family who are struggling, all the while explaining how it’s their own superior actions (and not really God at all) that explain why they will NEVER be in such a tough spot.

They know the rules of propriety and decorum. Heck, they helped update them at the committee meeting last year. They have the smiles that don’t spread any deeper than the skin on their faces, the kind that look like they’re practiced in a mirror. They make great eye contact when they talk to you. They squint their eyes in feigned interest when they ask about your family. The women pat your shoulder and the men purse their lips and give good firm handshakes. They’re the Stepford neighbors.

I’ve seen it in group after group, in lots of different settings. They’re the successful people that everyone else admires, the kind that make it easy to feel inferior. And there’s this unspoken understanding that they feel really good about how well they follow the rules of society, and they think a little shame on your part might be a good motivator.

Plenty of times I’ve seen that adversity sheds light on what’s really going on. If something bad is happening to their family, they make comments that mean, “This wasn’t supposed to happen to us. We’ve done everything right.” They’re far more worried about other people discovering their flaws than actually fixing them. A child or spouse’s struggle causes personal embarrassment for them, and is therefore unforgivable.

Their rule is simple: If you pretend with them that they and their family are models of good citizenship they will like you, especially if you are as pleasant and non-unique as they are. If you challenge their presentation to the world—if you say the Emperor has no clothes—you are exiled and become fodder for gossip.

I no longer look up to “nice” people and I am no longer drawn to them. I look instead for people with genuinely likeable qualities that take a little longer to be revealed. I consider people with these qualities to be kind, and I prefer kind over nice every day. I strive to express these qualities in my own life. I fall short most of the time, for I am a very flawed person.

I work on forgiving those people who accused me of being “nice.” Hopefully they meant they saw little hints of kindness. I’m positive that if they meant that falsely pleasant go-along-to-get-along nonsense, they found out pretty quickly—that’s not me!

The qualities that I value in others and seek to develop and express in myself are qualities I seek to express in my career. They are the core values of my business:

• Integrity
• Respect
• Responsibility
• Honesty
• Justice
• Humility
• Compassion
• Forgiveness
• Mercy
• Grace
• Restoration
• Kindness

And I have a long, long way to go before I can claim to be faithful to them.