The popular saying, “do as I say, not as I do“ means to follow someone’s words but not their actions. Normally this is said because their actions contradict their words. Cases such as smoking cardiologists, morbidly obese physical trainers, or law-breaking police officer are examples people saying one thing, but doing another. These types of juxtapositions strip confidence from the individual and the process. HTH states, congruence is the art of saying something, and doing what was said. So to rephrase our popular saying, ‘do as I say and as I do.’ In the instances of mediation, if there is no follow-through with agreements, the mediation is just empty words. Ethical principles might be important, but if none of them are put into practice, than they become worthless. Congruence is an important trait to have because it shows obedience to agreed decisions. Several years ago I had this opportunity to test my personal congruence.
…show more content…
As common with most camps, there was a list of agreed upon rules. The rules ranged from items such as wearing a life vest while boating to prohibiting fires in the grass fields. One of the rules agreed upon was to wear shoes everywhere on the campground. It was easy to follow when hiking or rock climbing, but harder to follow when on the sand banks or in the grassy meadows. We were specifically told to enforced this rule, but by the end of our second day, I was the only group leader who was still enforcing the shoe rule. The decision to keep enforcing the rule became a huge point of contention between my group and the other leaders. From the campers, I initially explained the logic of the rule – there were dangerous things and it was for protection. However, they became angry when they saw the other campers and leaders barefoot. Walking barefoot became a privilege – one they were being denied. Since I was the enforcer, they saw me as the party taking away their
As common with most camps, there was a list of agreed upon rules. The rules ranged from items such as wearing a life vest while boating to prohibiting fires in the grass fields. One of the rules agreed upon was to wear shoes everywhere on the campground. It was easy to follow when hiking or rock climbing, but harder to follow when on the sand banks or in the grassy meadows. We were specifically told to enforced this rule, but by the end of our second day, I was the only group leader who was still enforcing the shoe rule. The decision to keep enforcing the rule became a huge point of contention between my group and the other leaders. From the campers, I initially explained the logic of the rule – there were dangerous things and it was for protection. However, they became angry when they saw the other campers and leaders barefoot. Walking barefoot became a privilege – one they were being denied. Since I was the enforcer, they saw me as the party taking away their