The Right Thing

Sunday, September 13, 2026

When should we correct someone?

When is correcting someone the right thing, and when is it just another way of trying to prove you're right about something?

Back in December 2024, I wrote a Right Thing column about listening before interrupting. When I was in high school, I interrupted my physics teacher to tell him he was wrong. He explained I was not only wrong about the physics, but also wrong to interrupt him before he had finished speaking. The lesson that stuck with me was that before rushing to correct someone, it’s important to listen to make sure you understand what the person is saying.

Listening, however, doesn't mean we should never correct anyone. In August 2025, I wrote a column about an error I made during a podcast interview. I had referred to the FCC when I meant the FAA. Few listeners likely noticed, and my mistake didn't change the point I was making. Still, I contacted the interviewer and acknowledged my error in my column. If I expect people to check what I say, I should also be willing to make a correction when I get something wrong.

Which is more important? To listen first, or to correct the error? Sometimes the answer depends on what happens if we don’t.

If a friend told me that "Die Hard" was released in 1987 and I knew it was actually released in 1988, there may be little reason to interrupt the conversation to correct him. If someone mispronounces my name, correcting them may be helpful. If someone posts a false accusation about another person, it becomes more important to say something. If someone shares misinformation that could cause physical or financial harm, not saying anything to avoid appearing rude is hardly the right thing to do.

Even when a correction is appropriate, how we correct someone matters.

Telling someone that you believe they might be mistaken about a fact is different from simply declaring, “You’re wrong.” The first approach might open up a conversation. The second can easily turn a disagreement in which each person feels compelled to be right and prove the other person wrong.

Many of us encounter wrong statistics, misidentified photographs, made-up quotations, and things generated by AI that we know aren’t true. It’s near impossible to correct every error that crosses our way. We also shouldn’t assume that because something sounds wrong to us, it is wrong. My December column reminded me that certainty can be flawed. My August column reminded me that checking facts is everyone's responsibility, including mine.

The right thing may be to ask three questions before correcting someone: How certain am I that I am right? Who could be harmed if the error goes uncorrected? Can I correct something without making my effort seem like it’s just me needing to be right and someone else wrong?

Sometimes we correct because we believe another person would benefit from receiving the information. Sometimes we correct solely because we enjoy being the person who knows something that others don’t. Being right isn’t the same as being obliged to prove someone else is wrong.

We should listen. We should check facts. And sometimes we should say something out loud when someone’s facts are off. Even after doing all three of these things, we would do well to realize that being right doesn’t mean we always have to have the last word.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

Sunday, September 06, 2026

Just because you’re entitled to it doesn’t mean you should get it

How should a reader balance her desire to get what she’s paid for even if she has no plans to use what she paid for and knows that it could become a nuisance to her neighbor and an unsightly addition to her yard?

In a midwestern city of roughly 80,000 people, residents are charged about $4 a month on their utility bill for curbside organics recycling, or composting. Each household has to sign up to receive a wheeled collection cart for their compost, but not for the fee. The fee gets assigned to every household whether they ask for it to be or not.

A resident we’re calling Chloe doesn’t plan to use the composting cart but doesn’t like that she’s being charged for the service and won’t get the cart she’s entitled to, so she signed up to get a cart. Once she received it, she realized that she really has no place to store it that won’t be inconvenient or unsightly for her or her neighbors. The trash and recycling bins already take up any space available in her garage. If she puts the composting cart on the side of her house, her neighbors have to stare at it from their windows.

She asks if it’s wrong to put the cart out on the side of her house where it might annoy her neighbors. What’s the right thing to do?

It’s reasonable for Chloe to believe she should receive the composting cart because she, like everyone else, is paying $4 a month for it. But getting the cart just because she’s entitled to it and then not using it creates more problems.

If Chloe has no intention of composting, it doesn’t make sense for her to keep it simply because she paid the fee. Keeping the cart is a nuisance for her and a potential eyesore for her neighbors, who now have to live with the consequences of a choice Chloe made that serves no real purpose for her.

Chloe should try to find a place to keep the cart out of sight of her neighbors and consider using it for what it was intended. Her neighbors shouldn’t be forced to become unwilling participants in Chloe’s composting fee protest. She could end up finding herself a convert to the wisdom of composting rather than resenting the cart as a symbol of a fee she resents paying.

If Chloe is determined not to use the cart and can’t find a place to store it, she should call the city and ask if the cart can be retrieved. Sometimes doing the right thing means recognizing that getting what you're entitled to isn't always the same as doing what you're entitled to do. If she doesn’t like the policy, Chloe can ask the city to change it or ask that every household should automatically receive a cart. Until the policy changes, the right thing is for Chloe to find a place to store or use the cart or return it to the city.

Sunday, August 30, 2026

Is your authentic self a jerk?

Should you encourage someone to be their "authentic self" if you know the person is authentically selfish, dismissive, condescending and often just an authentically unpleasant person?

A reader we're calling Lily wrote about her friend who asked her advice on how he could become his more authentic self. Lily gathered that her friend had been reading about the importance of authenticity in the workplace to advance his career and wanted to try it. After he asked Lily her advice, however, she hesitated because she knew if her friend truly revealed his authentic self, others might see how self-absorbed and dismissive he could be. Lily suspects her friend wants to be perceived as having better character traits. She wonders how honest she should be in giving him advice on being more authentic.

I understand Lily's hesitation. While she might be in the habit of encouraging friends to be themselves, she doesn’t want to encourage a friend to impose a version of himself on others that makes life unpleasant for them.

"Authenticity" is one of those concepts that, like many ideas that become popular in management writing, can morph into empty jargon. Authenticity just means something is genuine. Being authentic doesn’t guarantee kindness, self-awareness or good character.

Someone can be authentically selfish or condescending. Being genuine doesn't make those behaviors admirable.

Striving to be authentic also doesn’t automatically translate into honest behavior. If Lily's friend is trying to manufacture an "authentic" persona because he thinks it will help him advance in his career, he's on shaky ground. Faking authenticity is fundamentally dishonest.

What should Lily do?

She should ask her friend what exactly he is trying to achieve. If he's willing to be specific, Lily can offer honest advice about those goals.

Does he want to become a better manager, have more productive relationships with colleagues, earn trust, or advance in his career? Those are concrete things Lily can discuss with him.

Her advice might include leveling with him that some of his behavior might be getting in his way. If he wants to be a better manager, for example, dismissing other people's ideas isn't a sign of strength. If he wants colleagues to trust him, being self-absorbed makes that harder.

Lily doesn’t need to tell her friend not to be himself. But she can help him distinguish between his personality and his behavior.

Her friend isn’t alone in having traits that we might not want to over-emphasize at work. If we’re an impatient person, that doesn’t mean we should interrupt others during a meeting. If we fancy ourselves a straight talker, that doesn’t require us to be cruel in our assessment of others. If Lily advises her friend to listen better or reconsider some of his less-appealing behaviors, she isn’t advising him to be fake. Instead, she may be pointing out that self-control and consideration can be more valuable than authenticity in the workplace.

Instead of telling her friend how to become more authentic, Lily should help him figure out what his goals are and what he might actually want to change about his behavior. If he still wants her opinion she should be honest and offer her advice on what she believes he might do to get where he wants to go. Instead of helping others become more authentic, sometimes the right thing might be to help them become someone who other people are glad to have around.

Sunday, August 23, 2026

Should you ask a professional for free advice?

Is it OK to ask a professional for free advice?

Several months ago, I asked our contractor for advice. He had installed new windows, and enough time had passed that they needed washing. They were the type of windows you tip in for easy cleaning on the outside. Most worked fine and were cleaned without incident. But when I got to the large kitchen window and tipped it back up to lock into place, it wouldn’t stay in place.

I texted our contractor, told him about the situation, and asked whether I might have broken something in my effort to clean the windows. “Unlikely,” he responded. He called and told me that the mechanism on the side of the window had likely come unfixed. He told me how to reconnect it, and in less than two minutes everything was back to normal. I had been prepared to ask him to come to the house to work on the repair, but he took the time to walk me through the fix.

Granted these were new windows that he had installed so it was unlikely he would have charged me if he had to come to the house. But the incident reminded me of questions I regularly receive from readers about whether we should pay professionals for their advice.

Sometimes, it’s asking a doctor for medical advice. Occasionally, it’s asking a therapist for advice about a child’s behavior. In my case, it’s often someone asking me to look at something they’ve written to offer advice on improving it.

Is it OK for someone to ask you for your professional advice without offering to compensate you? Is it OK for you to ask someone else for their professional advice without offering to compensate them?

The answer depends on what’s being asked and how much time the professional is likely to spend helping out.

Asking a quick question is fine. Asking them to do work that is typically part of their job is not. If, for example, I ask my accountant if an expense is deductible, she doesn’t expect compensation. If, however, I ask her to review my grandson’s tax return, I should expect to pay her for her time.

If a friend or neighbor has an occasional question, that too is fine. But if the questions keep coming, that crosses the line from a favor to unpaid work.

If you’re asking for advice, you can ask the person if they typically charge for such advice. That allows the professional a chance to respond without having to awkwardly bring up money.

It’s also OK to set boundaries when you’re the one being asked for advice. It’s reasonable to say you can answer a simple question but that a more complicated one may require hiring you or someone else.

My contractor had once asked me if he could have some old storm door windows I had stored in my basement that he used for his vegetable garden. I rounded them up and told him to take as many as he wanted. He hadn't asked for payment for the advice I asked him, but making this small gesture as a thank you for his time and wisdom seemed the right thing to do.

Sunday, August 16, 2026

Colleges Should Disclose Any AI Use in Admissions

Should colleges tell applicants when they use artificial intelligence as part of their admissions process?

A reader we're calling Seshat wrote wondering whether colleges are wrong to use AI as part of the admissions process while forbidding applicants from using AI to write their application essays. If colleges expect students to submit work that reflects their own thinking and writing, Seshat asked, shouldn't colleges be expected to do the same? At the very least, Seshat wondered, shouldn't colleges disclose when they use AI in admissions?

Some colleges are increasingly using AI as part of the application process. Associated Press writer Jocelyn Gecker recently reported that colleges including Virginia Tech, the California Institute of Technology, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have used or plan to use artificial intelligence as part of their admissions process. Some colleges have disclosed AI's role. Others have not. Many colleges, however, explicitly prohibit applicants from using AI to produce their admissions essays.

After Alice Scott, a reporter for the Daily Tar Heel, the student newspaper at UNC Chapel Hill, reported that the university used AI to evaluate applicants' grammar and writing, applicants, students and parents were critical. The editorial board wondered if applicants could be confident in the process. Administrators later updated the admissions website to explain that while AI provided some data on essays and transcriptions, only human evaluators would make the admissions decisions.

Since some admissions offices review thousands of applications each year, AI can be useful to organize materials and note if applications are incomplete. That could give human beings more time to evaluate each application.

But such administrative uses are different from allowing AI to evaluate the quality of essays or predict an applicant’s likelihood of being a good fit. Relegating such judgments to AI undercuts the ability of a human being to capture the nuance of each application. If college administrators move in this direction, they should ask themselves what if any value they bring to the process. They also owe it to applicants to disclose if AI is being used to decide their admission rather than a human being.

Colleges expect applicants to be honest about any work they submit as part of their application. Many insist any essays are produced entirely by the applicant without AI help. That’s a reasonable expectation, but applicants should expect the same of the institutions to which they are applying. Colleges should explain whether AI is used, what role it plays, and whether human admissions officers have ultimate decision-making responsibility. They should also make clear the safeguards used to minimize errors.

Some institutions already do this. All of them should.

AI can make aspects of the admissions process more efficient. But applicants are right in wanting to know how AI is being used to determine their prospects.

Colleges aren’t obligated to admit every applicant. They should, however, be clear in how they are conducting evaluations of applicants. When AI is used to evaluate applicants, the right thing is to say so.

Sunday, August 09, 2026

Should you correct a friend who tells your story as his own?

When you catch an old friend telling a story that you know didn't happen the way he's telling it, should you correct him?

A reader we're calling Frank wrote that he has an old friend who regularly likes to spin yarns when they gather with other friends. The wrinkle is that the friend often tells stories that Frank suspects or knows not to be true. Typically, Frank lets these fabrications slide. But recently, his friend began telling a story about an incident from their high school days that Frank immediately recognized as one that had actually happened to him. The friend had nothing to do with the incident and wasn't around when it happened. Frank decided to chime in and correct his friend by telling the assembled listeners that the incident happened to him and not his friend. The others laughed, but Frank worries he offended his friend by pointing out his lie.

Was Frank wrong to correct his friend? Or should he have corrected him on earlier occasions when he knew that the friend had likely co-opted others' experiences?

Some people regularly embellish stories to make them funnier, more dramatic or more interesting. There's a difference, however, between bolstering a story and stealing someone else's life experience. If a friend claims your story as his own, he moves beyond exaggerating to taking credit for something that belongs to you.

Frank's decision to speak up makes sense. If he hadn’t, those listening would have believed the story belonged to his friend. There wasn’t anything hurtful about correcting the friend. Frank was telling the truth. That others laughed likely wasn’t to humiliate the storyteller and more a reflection of the awkwardness of the situation.

While Frank was in the right, there’s no guarantee that his public correction didn’t embarrass his friend. If Frank wanted to do more than set the record straight, he might consider talking to his friend in private to let him know he was uncomfortable having his experiences told as if they had happened to someone else. By stopping short of calling his friend a liar, they might end up having a good conversation about the incident.

Should Frank have corrected his friend on earlier occasions when his stories were suspect? If Frank simply thought the stories might be fabrications, holding back from making accusations made sense. Calling someone a liar based on a suspicion is not typically a good move. But once his friend took Frank’s story as his own, staying silent no longer was the best option.

Trust and honesty are needed for friendships to thrive. If Frank’s friend’s storytelling notoriously strayed from the truth, his friends might have trouble knowing when to believe him. If Frank can find a way to respectfully let his friend know this when he speaks to him, that’s great. But he should stop short of calling him out on stories he only finds suspicious rather than those he knows to be untrue.

Sometimes it’s OK to let a harmless exaggeration pass. But when someone tells your story as if it happened to him, it’s best to correct the record. If friendship is indeed built on trust and honesty, then being honest with his friend is the right thing to do.

Sunday, August 02, 2026

When a neighbor’s ivy crosses the property line

Once a neighbor's plantings cross into your yard, is it OK to trim them back?

That’s a question posed by a reader we’re calling Persephone. Her neighbor planted English ivy years ago and it has spread onto Persephone’s yard where it is strangling shrubs and climbing trees. Persephone has trimmed the ivy back several times, but it keeps returning. Her neighbor refuses to do anything to control the ivy’s spread and when asked responds: “It’s just a plant.”

Persephone would prefer her neighbor removed the encroaching ivy, but he seems disinclined. “Is it OK for me to remove all the ivy that crosses onto my property even if it risks damaging the plant in my neighbor’s yard?” Persephone asked.

It's not uncommon for neighbors with adjacent properties to wrestle with how to maintain their landscaping while respecting the people next door. Trees, shrubs and vines often cross into neighboring yards without regard for property lines or fences. That's part of living near others.

Unlike plants, however, neighbors have choices. Once they know their landscaping causes problems for someone else, they should address it rather than dismiss the concern. Persephone’s neighbor's English ivy doesn't recognize property lines, but he should.

Persephone has already tried to preserve a good relationship with her neighbor by mentioning the ivy encroachment before she decided to remove the ivy from her property herself. By responding that “it’s just a plant,” the neighbor was dismissive of Persephone’s wishes.

It is possible the neighbor sees English ivy as an attractive ground cover and doesn't realize how destructive it can become. Once Persephone explained that it was damaging shrubs and climbing trees on her property, however, he should have taken her concerns seriously, even if he disagreed with her solution.

I am not a lawyer, but regulations in many municipalities permit homeowners to trim branches, roots or vines that extend onto their property if they do so from their own yard. Questions about plants crossing property lines have come up before in my column, which suggests the issue is a perennial one for readers. Even if the law is on Persephone’s side, that doesn’t mean it’s best to remove the ivy without letting the neighbor know of her intentions.

Before cutting the ivy back, the right thing is for Persephone to tell her neighbor of her plans. She likely doesn’t need his permission to protect her yard from his plants, but it’s respectful for her to tell him. A short conversation or note might lessen the possibility of an escalated conflict. Once the neighbor knows her intentions, it might even result in him deciding to address the problem himself.

Living next to other people means accepting that our decisions sometimes affect those around us. Good neighbors don't have to agree about every landscaping choice, but they should listen when those choices risk harming someone else's property. Persephone can protect her yard while still treating her neighbor respectfully. She can’t control how her neighbor responds, but being respectful gives the relationship its best chance of surviving long after the ivy is gone.