Due Diligence

“…Tone deaf, unresponsive, and insensitive to the victims….”**

by

** Cited from the statement issued by the MSU Board of Trustees on the fourth day of victim impact statements during the sentencing hearing for Larry Nassar.

If ever a published statement was the epitome of being tone deaf and insensitive, this certainly qualifies.  I credit the trustees for requesting a review by the Michigan Attorney General’s Office.  But that credit is tempered by their recent statement of support for the current president, stating that President Simon should continue in office.  That statement is, in my assessment, premature and misguided.

Perhaps a reminder of ethical leadership is needed.  Free of charge, here is a quick review of this concept.  Ethical leadership is guided by a profound respect for ethics (what we do when no one is looking), especially such ethical values and beliefs which protect the dignity and rights of individuals.  That guiding principle and such concepts as honesty, trust, and consideration, form the foundation for quality leadership.  President Simon might have been the right leader at some point but a hallmark of a leader is that when the proverbial stuff hits the fan, the one in charge takes the blame.  She was in charge and the majority of this travesty happened on her watch. On that basis alone, she must step down.  She can lament that she did not know what was going on but she had the ethical responsibility to know.  When she found out, she had the responsibility to do whatever she could to insure that the victims were harmed no further.  Her desire to remain in office cannot take precedence over the need for MSU to redress the harms done to the victims.  The Board of Trustees should immediately issue a new statement, acknowledging that MSU needs a new direction, one which adheres to the values of ethical leadership.  That statement should also acknowledge the impact on the victims.  Perhaps the trustees could express the hope that they can work with the victims to develop and implement changes that will insure that such a travesty never again happens at MSU or any other institution.

It’s about the victims now.  Let them know without a doubt that MSU is going to do take a new direction, one that is both ethical and moral.

The Time is Now

by
It has been heart wrenching to watch the televised sentencing hearing going on in Michigan where Dr. Larry Nassar will be sentenced this week. But at the same time, I admire the emotional strength and courage of each of the victims who has come forward, especially those who have found the strength to speak up publicly. Because of their courage, the topic of sexual assault can no longer be swept under the rug simply because of the status of the perpetrator, how much money he/she has, which organization is employing that individual, and which university or college might be affiliated with him/her. For these victims, and countless others who won’t get the national media attention, their injury is all the more reprehensible because in many instances these victims did speak up. Here’s the problem – no one took them seriously until the evidence was overwhelming. Nassar is currently serving a 60-year federal sentence because of his conviction on child pornography charges. He is facing sentencing on county charges involving the sexual assault on at least eight different victims, charges set out in a plea agreement. As the sentencing judge has noted, the plea agreement was reached in part to give the victims some closure. That doesn’t mean that their voices were to be silenced and a majority of the over 140 victims will be heard at the sentencing hearing by that courageous and compassionate judge. One can only hope that the judge imposes the maximum sentence available under the law and makes the sentence consecutive to the current federal sentence Nassar is serving.
The time has now come to not only hold those directly responsible for sexual assault, abuse, and/or harassment accountable to the fullest extent of the law, but it is also time for us as a society to hold those accountable who facilitate the wrongdoing or turn a blind eye because it affects their bottom line or might tarnish their public image.
Our children need the security of knowing that we, the community’s adult members, will do our utmost to protect their futures, keeping them free from the horrific consequences of such conduct that Nassar and others like him foist on the true innocents. We can never give these victims back what was so horribly stolen from them. But we can reassure them that we will do everything legally possible to prevent other young people from being victimized. To the victims I say stay strong as individuals, draw your strength from those willing to listen, help, and support you on a life journey that was not your choice. You will prevail.

No politics here!

by

From what I heard, watched, and read, there appears to be a perception that a double standard is being used regarding some individuals.  Whether it is or not is a moot point.  What is crucial is the perception has apparently arisen and quite frankly, nothing is being done to address it.  Here’s the problem for leaders within the community and business.  If any sector – public or private – condones the development of a double standard by either actually creating it or remaining silent when a perception develops, we have problems.  As leaders, we are held to a much higher standard and we must fulfill our responsibilities to be role models for ethical and quality leadership.  When we hear or see a double standard situation we have an obligation to step in and say and do something to address it.  If a business leader is allowed to engage in questionable conduct but a lower level manager or member of the staff is held accountable, how do we as leaders within our organization reconcile such treatment of individuals?  Can we continue to portray ourselves as ethical leaders within our organization when we turn a blind eye and deaf ear to instances of different treatment for different people?  Obviously, we cannot control what people think and what they will say to others.  We can control the ethical environment within our organizations and make sure that people, no matter their title or position, are held to the same standards.  By consistent and ethical conduct we can help set the standard for others to follow.  Not only will this approach help make sure that a double standard does not arise,  it may also help prevent such a perception.

Consequences or Double Standard?

by

As leaders of our organizations are we held accountable for our actions and comments?  Or are we given a pass and a double standard applied even when the actions were not perceived as we thought they would be?  Let’s look at the recent furor caused by the CEO of Sam’s Club and her comments.  In an interview she mentioned that in a meeting with a team from a supplier that team was comprised of white men which did not fit the Sam’s Club approach to diversity.  She said nothing to the team but told the interviewer that she was going to talk with the supplier.  Whether intended or not many people perceived her comments to be racist.  I think that perhaps there was a better way to make her point.

My concern is that as leaders we cannot engage in behaviors which can lead to wrong perceptions or engage in behaviors that are seen as rude and insensitive.  If we do and we get a pass, how do we address the problems created when employees engage in insensitive or rude behaviors?  If we want to promote meaningful diversity we must model emotional correctness – treating others with courtesy and respect while promoting opportunities for the best qualified individuals to succeed.  We must also do all we can to insure that all our employees are given fair and equal opportunities to succeed.  Promoting less qualified individuals over better qualified individuals for the sake of diversity ends up hurting everyone involved in the process so let’s avoid doing that.  If and when we engage in questionable conduct we do the right thing.  We own up to it and apologize if needed.  Accept the consequences and move on after learning from this life lesson.

Can your organization survive an all out PC attack?

by

Do the actions of the political correctness (“PC”) movement gone wild bother you?  They should.  The attacks taking place by the small but vocal minority of intellectual tyrants should grab the attention of every CEO in the country.  This movement is not about to stop with institutions of higher learning and our organizations could be next.  Can we survive?

I am a strong advocate of emotional correctness.  This is a philosophy which advocates that people treat one another with civility and respect, even when they disagree with a position, policy or statement.  Political correctness advocates that everyone is entitled to an opinion, so long as it agrees with the opinion held by the vocal minority.  Nothing suggests that when the PC  supporters encounter a different viewpoint that they have to be respectful of others or even civil.  On the contrary – shouting expletives seems to be the usual response.

On the other hand, emotional correctness is founded upon the belief that all people have value and are entitled to form their own opinions, whether they agree with ours or not.  As the leaders of our organizations, insuring that our organizational culture fosters and advances emotional correctness can be an effective first line of defense against PC assaults.  If allegations of harassment are made we have a responsibility to report that behavior to the proper authorities.  If the facts support a prosecution, we must support the actions by law enforcement and the courts.  If the facts do not support a prosecution our organizations must take steps to insure the situation is fully discussed and addressed.  Now is not the time to take the ostrich position.  Become proactive, implement emotional correctness within our organizational cultures and be prepared for the PC assault which may be heading our way.

A third rate public educational system – right here in America

by

Arizona watched the antics of the Superintendent of Schools and other public education officials in total dismay.  The latest was a scuffle over a microphone at a public meeting.  No one is paying attention to the fact that Arizona ranks virtually dead last in the country for public education.   And the top state officials are in a contest over a microphone?  Seriously?

Why is this issue important to those in the corporate world?  American companies are looking overseas for qualified workers because the U.S. is producing too few STEM qualified workers.  The Phoenix area reportedly lost an opportunity to have two major tech companies relocate to the area because of the lack of qualified workers.  Even more telling was the reluctance of management staff to relocate their families to a state where public education is obviously held in low regard.

If business in the U.S. is to remain competitive and commit to hiring qualified American workers, business leaders are going to have to step up and help the education side of the house.  This has been done in the past and continues in some regions.  Leaders in business and communities will need to exercise their leadership skills to insure the American public education system becomes second to none and insure that future generations have a solid foundation in the educational essentials that will take their businesses well into the 21st century.  Americans must realize that having students graduate from high school with the skills of a sixth grader will insure that they qualify only for menial jobs, nothing like the highly technical positions the job market of the 21st century demands.  When are we going to implement the needed changes to our public education model?

Ethics – Is a Double Standard Acceptable?

by

I admit that watching events over the last weeks and months has been interesting because one thought has come to mind. We apparently have some folks held to a higher ethical standard than others.
The success to problem solving lies primarily in correctly identifying the real source of the issue and engaging in a collaborative approach to implement realistic and long lasting solutions. But another key component is whether you, as the leader of your organization, are seen as an honorable and ethical individual. Why? What motivation is there for your staff to follow you if you are perceived as unethical? What if you are perceived as having a personal agenda that will undermine any solution supported and implemented by your staff? In today’s world of instant news via social media, even a momentary lapse in ethical judgment can be devastating to any serious attempt to resolve problems.
In your organization are all held to the same ethical standard? Or are some held to a higher standard than others? If the latter one applies to your organization and you’re okay with it, good luck in finding reasonable and realistic solutions to your problems.  Accepting a double standard on ethical behavior will serve only to eventually undermine the credibility of the leadership,  the reasonable expectation by employees that ethical conduct is valued, and will create an organizational culture that does not value or insure success.

Too Many Cooks

by

Have you ever participated in a decision making process where virtually everyone had an opinion and far too many had a personal agenda?  Oftentimes such situations reveal the following:  There are just too many “cooks” involved.
(For this blog, let’s envision the collaborative problem solving process as a recipe meant to be implemented by various “cooks” or individuals within your organization.)
First, we have those cooks who go along with the leader or majority, even knowing there’s something wrong with the soup recipe.  They care nothing about the final product but simply go along to avoid having to make a decision.
Second, we have cooks who are bound and determined to disagree with anything proposed by either the leader or the majority.  This group works hard to make sure there’s no consensus on the recipe.  They have an agenda and don’t care one bit about the outcome so long as they can remain on center stage.
Finally, there is the group of cooks who approach the decision making process with a collaborative problem solving perspective.  These are the folks who engage in active listening and willingly participate in the entire process, keeping their focus on the concept that any goal can be achieved so long as it doesn’t matter who gets the credit.  This group finds common ground and builds on that, producing a final product that is a realistic solution to the problem or they produce a sound, effective decision.
As the leader of your organization how do you insure which group of “cooks” you have helping you resolve problems and implement decisions?  How good are you at identifying those “cooks” who won’t spoil the soup?

Boundaries

by

About a month ago a large four-year old red Doberman “pup” joined the household.  I share this with you because of some lessons I’ve had reinforced for me.  Elliot was, until about a month ago,  emotionally neglected.  The basics of food, water, and shelter were met but the emotional connection was missing. To tug on your heart strings, he cried himself to sleep that first night, forlorn sobs reflecting his confusion and his anxiety.  It’s been a  daily task to help him learn the rules and boundaries.  Why put him through this?  Because dogs can completely stress out when boundaries are not clearly stated and enforced.  As he learns what is expected of him Elliot’s behavior is getting much better, his anxiety is lower and life is getting so much easier for him.

Let’s jump to your organizations.  Do you and all your employees know the boundaries?  Are the rules, regulations, policies and procedures of your organization clearly stated?  Does everyone know the consequences of failing to adhere to those boundaries?  Are you consistent in enforcing the boundaries or do some employees get a pass while others have their feet held to the fire?  If the latter scenario is at play is it any wonder that employee morale, loyalty and performance may be much lower than expected. Given that scenario it’s no surprise to me that problems persist and collaborative problem solving may simply exist on paper as a goal to be achieved.  Take a good hard look at your organization – better still have a professional problem solver take that look with you.  Identification of the boundaries will be more accurate, as will the assessment of how well they’re enforced.

Boundaries – they really are that important.

That Which Hits The Fan

by

– Is not equally distributed.

I’m sure we all know a tag line to the title but I thought I’d finish it in terms for polite company.

How many of us have worked for bosses who believed in tarring everyone with the same broad brush when mistakes happen?  It didn’t matter how large or small a role was played by the individual staff members – everyone got the same amount of blame and criticism, usually in as public a forum as possible.  I don’t know about you but being publicly humiliated for something I had nothing to do with was never high on my list of happy work events.  Even when the boss learned that the tirade was aimed at the wrong people was there any change in the behavior? Having gone through the ordeal by fire didn’t we all swear never to do what that boss did?  And yet, now that we’re in positions of management we may show that very same tendency.   It’s understandable but is it ever acceptable?

Obviously our initial reaction when a mistake rears its ugly head is not to smile and let everyone know there’s nothing to worry about.  Of course there’s something to worry about.  But flying off the handle, chastising staff publicly and blaming everyone is not going to erase the error.  Fix the problem for your customer first.  Then address the mistake directly with the staff responsible for it, focusing on the issue and not the individual.  Use the mistake as a teachable moment for the rest of your staff.  So what result can you expect from such an approach? How about employees striving for quality performance and accepting responsibility for mistakes because they know they will be treated fairly.