Is it wrong for a boyfriend to continue to support his ex?

 A reader we’re calling Sammie wrote in search of an answer to a question that has been plaguing her about her current relationship.

 

Apparently, Sammie’s boyfriend made a promise to his former girlfriend’s father when he was on his death bed. The boyfriend agreed he would take care of the father’s daughter and family. Since making the promise, the boyfriend has broken up with the daughter, and the father’s wife has died as well.

 

Nevertheless, Sammie wrote that her boyfriend wants to honor his promise.

 

“It is ruining our relationship,” wrote Sammie. His ex-girlfriend will not go away, and he feels a sense of obligation to keep in contact with her daily by phone and text in spite how he has told Sammie he doesn’t really like her anymore. Sometimes the “taking care of” involves the boyfriend giving his ex-girlfriend money.

 

“When can he feel like he’s done enough?” asked Sammie. “When can he move on? When can his obligation be fulfilled? There is no way this can be a lifetime promise, can it?”

 

Sammie has asked me if I might have any insight, and if I did, if I could tell her what I thought.

 

Let me make two things clear. First, I have no idea what Sammie’s boyfriend actually promised to his ex-girlfriend’s father. Second, I am not a relationship counselor. If Sammie believes her relationship with her boyfriend is in trouble because of past relationships and she is committed to making this relationship work, meeting with a relationship counselor to sort out the particulars seems wise.

 

But it seems unlikely that the boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend’s father expected Sammie’s boyfriend to continue to take care of his daughter in the event they ended their relationship. Again, I have no idea since I was not there. But if the father was hoping for what was best for his daughter, a compelling argument could be made that taking care of her might involve encouraging her to move on after her relationship to Sammie’s boyfriend ended. By continuing to act as if he were still involved with the ex-girlfriend when he is not could be construed as either misleading her or keeping her from finding a new healthy relationship. If this is the case, then is this really honoring the promise to “take care” of her?

 

Sammie’s boyfriend has some choices to make. Does he want to honor the spirit of his commitment to his ex’s father? Doing so might prove tough, but encouraging her to move on might be exactly the thing needed.

 

He also needs to decide how important his relationship to Sammie is. If refusing to let go of a past relationship even if his behavior is proving to impede his ex’s ability to move on and toxic to the possibility of developing a strong bond with Sammie, the boyfriend needs to ask himself what he really wants.

 

The right thing for Sammie to do is to let the boyfriend know how strongly she feels about his inability to let go of the past relationship and then to decide if she might be better off becoming another ex until he’s able to let the first ex go.

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.

(c) 2022 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

If 'I’ll get back to you' isn’t true, don’t say it

 Apparently, I am a dinosaur when it comes to voicemail. I still listen to voicemails that I receive from people who call me and leave a message. I have my office phone set up to forward voicemail messages directly to me as email attachments so I’m notified of them shortly after the message is left.

 

Granted, fewer people leave me voicemails these days, but I still try to return messages from all but those who are trying to sell me something that I don’t want or to offer me the chance to earn substantial amounts of cash through what appears to be some sort of scam.

 

For most people, however, voicemail seems to be a place where messages go to die, and this is nothing new. Back in 2013, eVoice, a company that helps users manage phone calls by using virtual phone numbers, conducted a survey and found that 67 percent of respondents couldn’t even be bothered to listen to the voicemails from business contacts whose phone numbers they recognized. Eight-two percent didn’t listen to voicemails that arrived from unknown numbers.

 

Nevertheless, many people persist in maintaining voicemail boxes encouraging callers to leave a message. When you have no intention of listening to let alone returning a voicemail message, is it wrong to lead a caller to believe otherwise by ending your outgoing message with something along the lines of: “… I’ll get back to you as soon as I can”?

 

Some who have no plans to listen to or respond to voicemails have taken a more responsible approach by never activating a voicemail box in the first place, making it impossible for callers to leave a message. Others make it clear in their outgoing message that they do not respond to voicemail and that if the callers would like to reach them they should email them, text them, or perhaps just call back at another time. “Please don’t leave a voicemail” seems a reasonable message particularly when followed by “but instead you can contact me by…” with the relevant details included.

 

Any of these or similar approaches strike me as good when it comes to managing or choosing not to manage voicemail. If you have no intention of listening to voicemails let alone respond to them, then the right thing is not to mislead a caller into believing you will or simply not offer callers a voicemail option.

 

There are good reasons to eschew voicemails. Most people are busy keeping up with texts, emails, social media messages, and any number of messages that are more immediate and quicker to access than voicemail. Just as many people don’t have a sense of urgency to respond to a postal letter, many don’t have a sense of urgency to respond to voicemails. Fine. Good. Perfectly acceptable.

 

But telling people you will respond even if in an outgoing message you recorded months if not years ago is misleading. Callers who might believe the message they left is urgent should at least know you have no intention of listening to it or returning it so they can find some other way to reach you if they must.

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.

(c) 2022 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Has homeowner reached the last straw?

 If ethics is indeed how we decide to behave when we belong together, then are you really doing anything wrong if many of your neighbors break the same agreed-upon rules that you break?

 

A reader from North Carolina we’re calling Lil wrote that she lives “in a nice community of 50 homes that has a homeowners association (HOA) and a ‘No Soliciting’ sign at the attractive community entrance garden.” Lil later clarified that the words on the sign are actually more specific: “No solicitation or distribution of outside materials.”

 

In spite of the sign, Lil reports that every so often someone will drive in with a pickup truck hauling a trailer containing several bales of pine straw, a common ground cover used by her and many of her neighbors in their gardens and around their trees and shrubs.

 

“I have occasionally hailed one of these ‘entrepreneurs,’ whose product is much more conveniently available this way, not to mention cheaper than other sources,” Lil wrote. But Lil noted that her actions and those of her other neighbors who partake of the goods not only violate the “no distribution of outside materials” rule, but also encourage return cruises through the neighborhood. “They don’t normally come knocking on doors (although they have done so), which I presume is what the HOA board most wants to discourage.”

 

Lil wrote that so far she has not noticed anyone shooing away the pine straw haulers, nor has she nor any of her neighbors received a notice from the HOA about being in violation of a policy. She would like to know my “ethical perspective” about both the “money-grubbing beautifiers of our neighborhood” and “outlaws like me.”

 

Since no one has complained as Lil and a few of her neighbors openly violate a rule they agreed to when they purchased their homes in the neighborhood, the simplest solution might seem to just let things lie. But that hardly makes it the best ethical choice.

 

Most HOAs have agreements that lay out procedures for how changes can be made to bylaws or restrictions. Some require a certain percentage of neighbors to be in agreement for any changes to be made. The right thing would be for Lil to explore such an option.

 

There’s a risk in doing so, of course. She might find that more neighbors are against the idea than are for it. She also might find that opening the discussion leads to a bigger discussion about how to limit distribution of materials only to these pine straw haulers.

 

But she also might find there’s a way to continue to purchase the pine straw from the random visitors that doesn’t violate the HOA agreement at all. Perhaps simply asking the pine strawers to set up deliveries ahead of time will do the trick. Perhaps the HOA allows lawn care workers to use the pine straw when working on a yard and might categorize these occasional visitors as lawn care workers.

 

Lil can only find out if her neighbors agree with her or if there’s a way to comply with the HOA rules if she approaches the HOA members. Sure, she may open a can of worms by doing so, but she also might discover that there’s an honest and straightforward way to cover up those worms with the pine straw she’d like to use.

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.

(c) 2022 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Must everyone contribute to a group effort?

What, if anything, should you do if some members of a group you belong to don’t contribute to an effort but never say why? It is a question that is facing a longtime reader from North Carolina we’re calling Bill.

 

Bill wrote me about what he describes as a “minor aggravation” that he doesn’t believe rises to the level of an ethical dilemma, but one that bothers him nonetheless. After joining a national support group for those living with a particular medical condition, the leader of the group drafted Bill to be one of his advisers.

 

As time went by, Bill appreciated “what a good and competent guy” the leader was. Bill believed that the other seven advisers from around the country might want to join him in showing some sort of appreciation to their leader.

 

“I emailed a suggestion for a custom-designed T-shirt, but said I was open to any other suggestions,” wrote Bill. All but two of the other advisers responded that they were supportive of the T-shirt idea and were willing to contribute just shy of $5 each for the shirt to be made. “I kept each of them informed and sought their input as the design developed.”

 

After the leader received the T-shirt, he was “enormously appreciative,” Bill writes, and he thanked all the advisers at the next Zoom session. “He wore the shirt and stood up so that all could see it.”

 

Bill was aggravated, however, that the two “quiet advisers” not only didn’t contribute to the T-shirt, but never even bothered to acknowledge or respond to his emails soliciting ideas for a gift.

 

“My ‘financial loss’ is of no consequence,” wrote Bill, “but I am tempted to ask them why they never weighed in at least.” Bill acknowledges that “it’s probably best to let sleeping dogs lie,” but he wrote to ask me what I believe is the right thing to do.

 

It may be aggravating, but if the emails that went around asked for voluntary contributions, then Bill is indeed right to let sleeping dogs lie. None of us ever know what another’s situation is, and while contributing $5 may seem like very little to one person, that might not be the case for everyone. If Bill wanted to avoid being left to wonder why the two didn’t respond in any way, he could have presented the idea for the T-shirt but indicated that he would only move forward if everyone supported the idea. If it was more important to the majority of the advisers to recognize their leader than to have unanimity, they did the right thing by moving ahead with the gift that they could afford from the contributions they did receive.

 

That doesn’t let the two silent advisers entirely off the hook. While they had no obligation to contribute to the gift, when asked about the idea for the gift, the right thing would have been for them to respond one way or another. If they had at least responded, Bill would have known it wasn’t the idea of the T-shirt itself that they had an issue with. Regardless, Bill’s goal of doing something to recognize their leader was accomplished, and that in itself should spark at least a small amount of joy for Bill.

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.

(c) 2022 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.