Ethics

Choices = Consequences

by

There have been any number of news stories about people demanding a freedom of choice.  Usually the story is about some individuals demanding the freedom to do whatever they want, when they want.  I will be the first to say that choice is a good thing.  However, what is often overlooked is that with freedom of choice comes consequences.  Whatever choice we make, we pay the consequences, good or bad.  But it seems that people only want the first part of the equation and apparently cannot and will not accept the bad consequences of their decisions.  When they make a poor choice, they demand that someone else pay those consequences.  Putting it bluntly, toddlers make bad choices and our parental concerns are that they are protected from the consequences so that they do not get hurt.  Many parents take advantage of such opportunities to help our toddlers make better choices.  Apparently we have been seeing a great number of toddlers masquerading as “adults” in news reports.

As leaders within our organizations, we suffer the consequences when we make poor choices or when our employees make poor choices.  That is the reality and we need to make sure that we are modeling the appropriate behaviors.  When we mess up, we cannot and should not be shifting the responsibility to subordinates.  That is both poor leadership and unethical behavior.  Instead, we need to take our medicine and learn from our mistakes.  When our employees make poor choices, we need to insure that they understand that they own the consequences of that behavior.  We also need to help them learn from their mistakes.

Bottom line?  We own our choices, good or bad, and with our choice come consequences.  Whether we like it or not, we own those, too.

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.

A Pleasant Surprise

by

I recently experienced a problem with some computer hardware. A keyboard which was put into service in April suddenly had about ten keys which no longer had any markings on them. It was difficult to type quickly without having to constantly check where my fingers were. Frustration level – high. In mid July I wrote a letter to the CEO of Logitech, Mr. Darrell, explaining the situation and noting that I was disappointed in the durability of what is otherwise an excellent keyboard.

Now for the pleasant surprise – within a week I received an  e-mail from a customer service representative who asked that I provide some additional information, including photos of the keyboard. A few days later I was informed that I would be receiving a new keyboard. The new equipment arrived this afternoon and it is a pleasure  to type again. This surprise is all the more pleasant because a replacement was not my intent. As a matter of fact I had already purchased the replacement the same day I sent my letter but had not installed it as yet.

Mr. Darrell and his staff at Logitech appear to appreciate the importance of quality customer service and professionalism. It is gratifying to see that a positive approach was taken to resolving what is in the overall scheme of things a rather minor problem.  I hope that there is a consistency between the quality of their customer service and the treatment of staff.  Such consistency will insure that job related issues will be consistently and appropriately addressed with positive resolutions the likely outcome.  A win/win for the organization.

 

 

 

Pause for Reflection

by

My plans for this posting were affected by the many comments I heard while in Washington DC this week.  The major topic was the untimely passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  Folks were putting aside the political and ideological factors and focusing on the individual.  That caused me to think over my reaction to his many opinions from the Court which impacted our criminal justice system.

I agree with the consensus comment that Justice Scalia caused all of us to do our jobs better.  His respect for the Constitution created situations where he clearly put the country ahead of personal agenda, as was the case when he joined seven colleagues in their decision on the Westboro Baptist Church matter.  It was obvious that the actions of that group were abhorrent to many of the justices and yet, they upheld the First Amendment right to free speech, as hateful as that speech might be.  Justice Scalia challenged himself and the rest of us to maintain an objective intellectual look at the law.   We cannot imbue the law with what we wish it could be.  Rather, we must insure that the law clearly addresses a concern and does so in a fair and impartial manner.  I am fascinated that despite the invective directed at this individual, he never swerved from his core belief that our Constitution was a guiding document which transcends time.

According to those who knew him best, he was a brilliant jurist, well spoken, a dedicated husband, father, and grandfather, and a true and loyal friend to an eclectic group of people.  Above all, he was a man of faith.  I can think of no better legacy for such an individual.

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.

My Goodness!

by

Recently, I watched a news conference and witnessed something I never thought I would see in a chief executive – an exquisite non-verbal temper tantrum worthy of a two year old.  Now you know that seeing such behavior got me to thinking.  Are we aware of the non-verbal messages we send?

Any leadership or management class will teach us about the importance of attending to the non-verbal cues in any communication.  The various communication theories tell us that the majority of our interpersonal communication is non-verbal.  Are we cognizant of the non-verbal messages we send?  When a colleague is speaking do we glance at our watch, perhaps more than once?  What message did we just send?  When we are involved in conflict management, do we listen to opposing opinions with arms crossed?  If we make eye contact are we doing so in an aggressive manner, daring the individual to continue to publicly disagree with us?  Do we get aggressive in our stances, invade the other individual’s personal space?  Do we engage in non-verbal tantrums to let people know we are displeased?  Are we aware of what we are doing?

Here is a key point.  I do not know about you but I want my colleagues to disagree with me.  Their viewpoints and perspectives are critical to keeping me focused on our goal – resolve the problem in the best possible manner.  I am not diminished because someone has the temerity to disagree with me or point out where my approach might need some improvement.  I think we all improve our decision making when our staffs and colleagues provide honest assessments of those decisions.  I work hard to create a work environment where people provide constructive criticism.  The end result makes us all look good – an effective, realistic resolution to a difficult problem.

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.

Silence is Golden

by

Have you ever watched a public figure say something in an interview that leaves you yelling at the TV?  I had just such a moment recently while watching Howard Dean.  His commentary on all those who had gone to see “American Sniper” had me recalling a piece of advice given me long ago – ’tis better to be quiet and only thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.  That piece of advice is good in any venue.  Despite the old nursery rhyme about sticks and stones, words spoken in haste or used to demean or hurt create significant harm and carry long lasting effects.

As the leader of your organization do you have the reputation for speaking before thinking? Do you pride yourself on speaking your mind,  not afraid, according to you, to “tell it like it is?” Let me ask a few questions.  How helpful has your approach been in correctly identifying the root cause of problems within your organization? Is your staff confident enough to give you honest and accurate assessments – or afraid to speak up for fear of being verbally cut to shreds, usually in as public a setting as you can arrange so as to reinforce your reputation for blunt talk? Do you take pride in that reputation, often doing so without full information? When the information you should have considered shows you’re on the wrong side of the issue, is that when you remain silent?

Silence is golden, especially when we take time to think before we speak.  Before making a decision, listen actively to your staff and trust them to do their jobs.  Let your organization know your decision by speaking quietly, respectfully, and candidly so as to do no more harm.

Emotional Correctness

by

Effective problem solving is an essential tool to help insure the success of any organization.  In the past decade or so many organizations have surrendered to the social pressure of implementing political correctness into the organizational culture.  I suggest that rather than help solve problems PC has stifled constructive dialog and collaborative problem solving.  PC advocates have basically shut down any differing viewpoint. This has eliminated any real chance to find common ground where the parties can begin to work toward finding long term solutions.

I propose that leaders implement a new approach – emotional correctness.  What is emotional correctness?  We all have learned it by another name – the Golden Rule.  Treat others as you would like to be treated.  No fancy titles, no fancy outcomes.  By providing your employees with opportunities to get to know one another and modeling the same behavior, you set the stage where dialog and collaboration are valued.  It’s very difficult to be a negative influence when all around you are showing respect and decency to one another.  Emotional correctness (“EC”) encourages collaborative problem solving because we start from a point of common ground and a point where manners and respect are valued.  Treating one another with respect encourages brainstorming and realistic evaluation of the various selected alternatives.  Why?  Because it encourages people to treat others as if they have value.  With EC in place, the focus remains on the issue, situation or behavior, not the individual.

So, by whatever name we call it – EC, the Golden Rule, mutual respect, or whatever, let’s give this approach another try.  Let’s see if we can return to an atmosphere of problem solving which focuses on the issues rather than allowing PC attacks on those who dare to have an original thought or idea.