Focus on The 4-WayTest

 

Rotarians and others offer their perspectives on the venerable ethical yardstick.

The Test belongs where it originated:

In the business world

A test for everything we think, say, or do-how ambitious! Such a tool must surely be the work of a prophet or great spiritual leader-or of some high-minded R.I. committee that meets in Evanston. Instead, The 4Way Test was a tiny, unassuming spin-off of what were perhaps the most difficult years in U.S. economic history: the Great Depression.

Herbert Taylor was, in 1932, an executive with a large and relatively secure company in whose employ he might well have ridden out the storms of the late 1920s and early 30s. He chose, however, to purchase a small kitchen-utensil manufacturing company and take his chances in an already crowded industry with a market that would support only the very best.

From the outset, Taylor recognized that the smallest mistake would probably be his last. There was no room for bad calls or poor judgment. He needed an advantage that could take him beyond a quality product, hard work, and his share of good luck.

After considerable thought and consulting with his employees, he proposed a relatively simple four-part test, a filter through which he and his colleagues could pass every question and decision they would face. The test consisted of four fundamental, doing-business questions. Simply and succinctly, they addressed the issues of truth and fairness, of building friendships and accruing benefits.

Whatever else may have been involved in the ways of products and practices, the combination worked. The company-and its chief executive survived and flourished. Indeed, Herbert Taylor would become, some 20 years later, president of Rotary International, and in the course of his year of service would give to Rotary the copyright to his "test."

Today, The 4-Way Test is as much a part of Rotary as is the luncheon or the gear-wheel emblem. Its blue-and-gold banner hangs in Rotary club meeting rooms around the world and, neatly framed, it graces the walls of Rotarians? offices from Sydney to St. Louis. It's on bumper stickers and business cards, pins and posters, coffee cups and ballpoint pens. It is an ever-present element of the Rotary milieu.

In spite of all this visibility, however, it does not get off the wall and into the workplace quite as much as one might hope. Thus, we need to remind ourselves occasionally that our 4-Way Test is not just a clever construct-a little piece of insider information "for members only." In fact, the test did not spring from Rotary but, as has been said, from the crucible of commerce. It was a business tool long before it was a credo of our clubs. The 4-Way Test is not really in its element so long as it is blue and gold; its natural colors are the black and white and sometimes gray of doing business.

With this in mind, let's look again at the four famous questions, but this time not simply to increase our Rotary vocabulary or our comfort level at the Wednesday luncheon, but to discover the timeless applicability of the test to our business relationships on Monday mornings or Thursday afternoons.

Focus on the facts. "Is it the truth?" is the basic call to honesty with which Mr. Taylor's test begins. One need not be in business longer than a day to discover that to deal in half truths, quarter truths, or no truth at all is to introduce disaster into the mix, instant or delayed, depending on the circumstances. Were this the only question on the test, we would be well advised to take it seriously.

Focus on the folks. As truth is to the facts of doing business, so fairness is to its people. "Is it fair to all concerned?" refers to the women and men on both sides of the counter or the contract. Any equation involving people has paramount among its elements the highly subjective but never unimportant issue of fairness. To deal effectively with the second question of the test, then, requires that we walk in the shoes of those to whom we sell or service and see our mutual encounter as they see it. Rarely can this be done quickly or superficially, but the time invested promises returns that almost nothing else can guarantee.

Focus on the field. "Will it build goodwill and better friendships?" addresses the arena or territory in which we do our daily business. The man or woman who doesn't know or care about the territory, who doesn't feel an obligation to ultimately do business among friends will, sooner than later, be looking for another territory. Good deals, reduced rates and discounts, even monopolies and cornered markets may generate their share of traffic, but if they do not generate their share of friends, their days are numbered. If goodwill is not a portion of the payment, then the product needs a long and second look.

Focus on the future. There is a sense in which to benefit is to grow, to be more afterward than one was before. More often than not, transactions are not tidily concluded but go beyond the purchase or the process.

"Will it be beneficial to all concerned?" The repeat customer, that bellwether of healthy businesses, is inevitably the product of a positive answer to question four of the test. If benefits are small or nonexistent, this part is failed. But, when everybody wins, the benefits are elegantly distributed.

Is it true and fair, will it build friendships and benefit us all? Not too complicated a formula, in a business world that Taylor and his colleagues might find overwhelming. And yet, amidst all the complexities of these closing moments of the 20th century, these simple questions hold their ground. They are still ambitious filters through which to pass our thoughts and words and actions. They transcend the technology on which we've come to more than just depend. They challenge us lest we forget that in the last analysis, people are at the heart of doing business just as they have always been.

Veracity, fairness, goodwill and mutual benefit are still the underpinnings of success, and when we focus on the fundamentals they represent, we shall inevitably find ourselves the better for it.

--Harrell G. Miller, Rotarian

Napa, California, U.S.A.

The 4-Way Test: philosophically sound?

It is a basic tenet of anthropology that man has chosen to be a social animal, i.e., to live in communities or groups because in this way his chances of survival are better than in the single nomadic existence.

It is another basic sociological principle that for any group to succeed, certain limitations must be placed on the freedoms of the individuals that make up the group. These limitations are self-imposed disciplinary measures and form the basis of a society's laws and codes of behaviour. This process is derived empirically by observation and trial-and-error, and the most highly refined codes of this sort are termed ethical principles.

The leaders of all the great religions have recognized the necessity of this fundamental scientific principle and have succeeded in embracing this rule of limitation of freedoms in their teachings, under the headings of honesty, charity, fidelity, compassion, and other altruisms. The difference between the secular and religious methods of getting the message across is that the former asks us to comply with codes of behaviour for the good of society, and the latter asks us to conform for the love of God, who requires it of us.

This brings us to The 4-Way Test, which is really a code of ethics that can be applied to all of one's business transactions. What it says is "I will not do unto others what I would not want them to do unto me." It is one of the best summaries in existence of a business code of ethics, as it embraces in its thinking both the theological ideal ("Is it the truth?" "Is it fair to all concerned?") and the principles of materialistic philosophy ("Will it build goodwill and better friendships?" "Will it be beneficial to all concerned?").

Rotary is fortunate to have The 4-Way Test as a guideline for its members. A deep debt of gratitude is owed to Herbert J. Taylor, the Chicago Rotarian who formulated it.

--Roderick Thomson, Rotarian

San Fernando, Trinidad & Tobago

---

Four theories for the Test

---

The hide-and-seek theory: The first question of Rotary's test asks "Is it the truth?" I used to view this in philosophical or religious terms, but now believe that the test?s creator wanted us simply to consider the intent, content and spirit of our words and actions. He meant for us to tell all of the truth rather than just the portion that suits our interests; to present all the facts without slant, as best we could.

Did you ever play "hide and seek" as a child? The one chosen to be "it" had to count to 20 with tightly closed eyes while the others would hide. "It" would then try to find them. There were a number of ways to cheat: You could count extremely fast, or fake a forearm across the brow with eyes wide open. I can still hear the piping treble voice of a playmate exclaiming: "No fair peeking!"

I suggest the hide-and-seek test be applied to all matters pertaining to truth. If you hear a "No fair peeking" voice in the recesses of your mind, begin immediately to change your words or actions.

The biscuit theory: Some time ago, I was a partner in a business venture. We sat with our lone attorney facing a battery of attorneys at a commercial business sale. It was finalized in the board room of a rather large and impressive downtown law firm.

The attorneys for the other side insisted that we capitulate on every point of a very long document. Typically, there is some give and take, but after about 10 "gives" on our part, my friend jumped up and declared, "You?re trying to take all the biscuits off the table. If this doesn?t stop, I'm going to jump out of the traces." After I explained to the "city boys" what he meant, the sale proceeded smoothly, with no one trying to take every single "biscuit."

"Is it fair to all concerned?" I've never been in a closing since when I didn't think of the biscuit theory as a fairly good method of doing business.

The lagniappe theory: Two of the happiest years of my life were spent attending graduate school in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. I loved the climate and the spicy food, but mainly I loved the people.

Cajuns are warm, happy, sincerely hospitable people. I formed lifetime friendships upon very short acquaintance. They immediately invited you to share sports, food, or some sort of hospitality, and if you made a purchase, they virtually always included a "lagniappe." Lagniappe means something extra- the baker's dozen.

In today's modern city life, these people still find the time and have the grace to practice the lagniappe theory as their way of building goodwill and friendships. I think it's a fine example of Mr. Taylor's test. Isn't there something extra you can give or do?

The symbiosis theory: In biology, there are a number of good relationships where organisms depend on and benefit from each other. Certain ants, for example, make specific plants their home and defend the leaves from being consumed by other insects. Both plants and ants benefit; this is a symbiosis. The antithesis of such a mutually beneficial relationship is the host/parasite situation: the flea is quite happy on the dog but the dog is usually less than content.

Our daily lives are filled with opportunities to simultaneously serve and benefit from others. We should answer the question "Will it be beneficial to all concerned?" by living in such a way that we might achieve symbiotic harmony with our fellow man.I hope these simple theories bring the words of The 4-Way Test to life for many.

 

--Garland F. Pinholster,

Rotarian

Canton, Georgia, U.S.A.

 

---

 

Does Rotary's Test apply to public policy?

[In October 1993, Lieutenant Governor of New Mexico Casey Luna addressed the Rotary Club of Albuquerque on the topic "The 4-Way Test-Ethics in Government." The following is an extract of his speech.]

The 4-Way Test talks about truth, goodwill, and fairness . . . this is surely a creed to live by. It has served Rotary well and is a good starting point for understanding ethical practices in government.

What is ethics? It is not about morality or even legality, though to act immorally or illegally is not likely to be ethical. But it may be ethically correct to act illegally if it is determined that to act legally, to follow orders, is ethically wrong in a given situation.

Ethics is about how we think and the actions we take as a result. In the public sector, ethical behavior is about trying to make the right decisions, often under difficult circumstances, and taking responsibility for your decisions.

As far as telling the truth is concerned, in some military operations that risk lives it may be necessary to lie to protect these lives. This doesn't mean government officials are free to lie at any time. It means that there are circumstances where secrecy is required, and therefore something less than the whole truth is the right course of action.

Perhaps the best way to say this is that we owe the public enough of the truth to permit them to judge whether they agree with our decisions. This is the democratic ideal and it generally means relatively full disclosure.

The second tenet of Rotary's test is fairness. Certainly our principle of democratic governance would endorse fairness, but I need to caution that this is not the same as equality. The U.S. constitution requires equality under the law as a dictate against privilege and special consideration. But fairness may actually mean treating people differently, not to give special privilege, but to help those who would otherwise suffer discrimination.

It's lamentable that people have to be forced to be fair, but I can tell you from personal experience with the sting of bias that our society could be quite ugly if discrimination were not outlawed. So public sector ethics involves creating a level playing field; any of you who have used the handicap system when playing golf can appreciate what I'm saying.

As for the third question of The 4-Way Test, goodwill and friendship are tough standards for the public sector. Those of us in government must develop a trust relationship with our fellow citizens. We don't owe you friendship, we owe you hard work. We don't owe you goodwill, because there is no guarantee that our decisions will be to your liking. We must strive to do what is right, not to make friends.

That may sound strange coming from someone in public office; after all, the image of the politician is one who is always promising things to make friends. But because issues change, who supports you and who opposes you changes from issue to issue. The hard reality is that in the development of public policy, friendships may have to be put aside. The currency of politics is trust and reliability: You seek out those who will not switch sides on you, and reliable, like-minded individuals need not be friends.

The last tenet of the test is that of benefit to all. If government could only engage in programs that benefited everyone, there would be no government-and anarchy is the least beneficial of all situations. The standard which government must hold itself to is one that looks first to correct the harm that an unregulated society would impose on some persons. Our responsibility is to benefit as many as possible, not to protect the status quo.

I have thus far suggested that The 4-Way Test and the concept of government ethics follow similar but not overlapping paths. I don't mean that the Test is inappropriate; rather, it focuses more on interpersonal relations and a democratic governance requires a more careful review of situations.

 

--Casey Luna, former Rotarian,

lieutenant governor of New Mexico, U.S.A.

---

Copyright (c) 1995 Rotary International. All Rights Reserved.

Use of this information is subject to the following terms: It may be used only by Rotarians in good standing for the use of other Rotarians; the information and graphics may not be modified in any way; no charge or other fee may be charged for access to this information; full attribution to Rotary International must be included with each use; all commercial use of this material is prohibited. This file may not be posted or redistributed without express written permission from Rotary International.

All use of this information and material is governed by this notice and by the rules set forth in the file POLICY.TXT in this library. For more information, contact David Genenz at RI Headquarters via CompuServe at 102503,3575, or via Internet Email at 102503.3575@compuserve.com.

THE ROTARIAN

October/1995, Vol.167 No. 4

4-way Essay Contest

Return to the Four Way Test Committee Page

Last Revised: May 21, 2008