Grappling with the Gray

About five years ago, I was driving home from Dallas, Texas, when I pulled up to a toll booth in Oklahoma. Being somewhat directionally challenged, I told the attendant that I was turning west, thereby exempting myself from the toll of $2.50. When I reached the turnoff, however, I realized that I needed to go east, but there was no way of getting back to correct my error without a complicated and time consuming detour.

That error remained on my mind, and it seemed proper to mail a check to the Oklahoma department of transportation. However, I only seemed to remember that I needed to correct the error when I was in no position to do anything about it.

Last week, I was once again driving back from Dallas. I told the toll booth attendant that on my last trip I had mistakenly said west when I meant east and that I wanted to pay double. She told me not to worry about it and waved me through.

Did the attendant have the authority to turn down my offer to pay for my previous mistake? Should I have insisted she take the extra fee? What if it would have cost her extra effort to process my payment? Should I still send a check to the Oklahoma department of transportation?

In general, what attitude should we adopt toward small, unintentional errors that might cost more to correct than the loss or damage we originally caused?

Meet this week's panelists:

JC Glick is a retired Army Ranger Lieutenant Colonel. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as an author and TEDx speaker.

Sarah Kalmeta aka Sara the Pivoter, is founder of Pivot Point, a career transition coach, author, and podcast host.

S. Scott Mason, aka the Myth Slayer, is a speaker, podcast host, and coach working with executives and entrepreneurs to Magnetize & Monetize Professional Freedom by Dislodging Toxic Myths to Ignite the Charisma Within.

#ethics #society #culture #mindset #grappling

Recently, Republican NY Congressman George Santos was indicted on 13 federal criminal charges, including wire fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds and making false statements to the House.  He may be better known for the many lies he allegedly told about his record leading into his successful election bid.

Prior to his indictment, Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia introduced a resolution to expel him from congress.  Speaker Kevin McCarthy blocked the resolution, insisting that the Department of Justice investigation should precede any action.  When Congressman Garcia subsequently renewed his resolution, Speaker McCarthy referred the case to the House Ethics Committee.

Without getting into the specifics of this case, should due process and the presumption of innocence apply to ethics violations the same way they do to legal violations?

It’s distressingly common for individuals to defend unethical behavior by claiming, “It’s not illegal?”  Since ethics demand more from us than strict observance of the law, should we be able to bypass due process in the enforcement of ethical misconduct?  And, if we do, how can we ensure that unethical players will not exploit ethics rules to target opponents out of political motives rather than the preservation of ethical standards?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Diane Helbig is Chief Improvement Catalyzer at Helbig Enterprises, providing guidance and training to business owners and leaders around the world.

🟦 Mark O'Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, helping companies add innovation to their mindsets and their operations to create discernible competitive advantage.

Brian Kelly is President and Human Connection Officer at Brian Kelly Leadership Coaching, helping inclusive, people-first leaders and their teams grow their leadership effectiveness, relationships and business performance.

#ethics #standards #culture #mindset #grappling

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been under fire for accepting lavish gifts from a wealthy friend. It’s worth noting that neither Moses nor the prophet Samuel ever asked to borrow a donkey on the slim chance that it might be perceived as leveraging their authority and prestige for personal gain.

That being said, even the esteemed Yale Law Professor Stephen L. Carter, writing for the Washington Post, found more smoke than fire in the allegations. He did, however, cite the Wall Street Journal’s Pulitzer Prize winning series that found some 2600 federal officials with investment holdings that posed serious conflicts of interest.

His deeper point is that focusing on isolated, high-profile ethics charges inclines us to overlook more systemic problems of considerably greater concern.

Scripture’s warning that bribery blinds the eyes of the wise finds support from both human psychology and common sense. How demanding should we the people be in expecting strict ethical standards from our elected and appointed officials? What steps can we take to influence more rigorous yet balanced guidelines and their even-handed implementation?

Finally, what standards should we set and tactics should we employ to avoid putting ourselves in situations that will skew our ethical judgment?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Sam Ardery is a national mediator, trial lawyer, consultant, speaker, and author. He teaches negotiation at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law and is author of Positively Conflicted: Engaging with Courage, Compassion and Wisdom in a Combative World.

Kimberly Davis is an author, TEDx speaker, and founder of the Brave Leadership University, leading development programs world-wide, around authentic leadership, purpose, presence, and influence.

Annette Taylor is a researcher of evolutionary psychology and biology. Her website, Cavedweller Club, offers guidance and insights on how we can better understand the way our own hardwiring influences unconscious bias and decision making.

#ethics #politics #leadership #supremecourt #grappling

If you get your work done in half the time, is the other half of your time really yours?

Last week, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner announced that she would resign from her position amidst charges of chronic mismanagement and neglect of duty. Among other allegations, local reporters discovered that Ms. Gardner had been taking classes in a full time nursing program during a staffing crisis in her office.

In general, is it ethical to hold two full-time jobs at once? With advances in artificial intelligence, some workers claim that they can easily handle the demands of two, three, or four jobs without compromising their performance in any of them.

Is it proper for individual employees to make such an assessment themselves? Even if it’s true at any particular moment, are those employees likely to relinquish one of those jobs (and its paycheck) if their workload increases and they have to cut corners?

And even if they are getting all their work done competently, are they unethical for deceiving employers who don’t know about those second or third jobs? Or, if they are doing all the work they are being paid to do, is the remaining time in their day theirs to do with as they please? Is using unallotted time for another job any different from playing Candy Crush or surfing TikTok?

Tune in on LinkedIn Live at 5:00 pm ET this Wednesday when these guests join the ethics panel:

Mark Brown, CSP is a world champion speaker, an executive coach, and an artificial intelligence software advisor.

Deb Coviello The Drop In CEO™ is an author, speaker, podcast host, and silver medalist curler who coaches C-Suite leaders of today and tomorrow to navigate challenges with confidence.

Dr. Robyn Odegaard is known as the Mental MacGyver. She provides luxury level, high performance support and coaching to executives, founders, celebrities and athletes. She is also the creator and facilitator of the Quick Hits podcast.

#ethics #bestpractices #companyculture #integrity #grappling

Are we setting ourselves up for failure... or worse?

In the wake of Jack Teixeira allegedly leaking classified information damaging to American security and embarrassing to American prestige, columnist Rob Henderson wonders if the lower standards and increasing incentives for military recruits has contributed to a less committed class of soldiers.

It’s concerning, if not surprising, that patriotism and support for the military are in decline. Much worse, however, is the spirit of self-interest that may be motivating enlistment. Rather than focusing on the higher values of service and a sense of history, the military’s ever-increasing recruitment budget trumpets how you can serve yourself by acquiring skills and financial perks.

Several years ago, my own son applied for a special forces division of the IDF. He described the process as three days of crawling in the dirt. Four of the 15 applicants in his group dropped out in the first 3 hours. The rest lasted to the end. They weren’t all accepted, but they all demonstrated a willingness to do what needed to be done because it needed to be done.

As our generation becomes softer, do we need to relax standards to accommodate the current zeitgeist, or do we need to preserve standards to slow the relentless slide toward self-indulgent mediocrity? And what are the possible consequences of each?

Join me and the panelists at 5:00 pm ET Wednesday on LinkedIn Live for this week's episode of Grappling with the Gray:

Melissa Hughes, Ph.D. Hughes is Founder and Principal of the Andrick Group, applying recent brain research to improve employee engagement, company culture, team dynamics, and innovation.

Dr. Jenna Ross, CMPC®, LAC. Jenna Ross is a doctor of performance psychology, a former Army National Guard Drill Sergeant, adjunct professor, mental health advocate, and podcast host.

Hon. Charles Williams is a retired rear admiral and former Assistant Secretary of the Navy, as well as a fellow of Hudson Institute, a research organization promoting American leadership for a secure, free, and prosperous future.

#ethics #culture #military #discipline #success

Whose side are the media on?

In what appears to be a coincidence, news anchors Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon were fired over the weekend by Fox News and CNN respectively, despite both having huge followings. The reasons are not entirely clear, but are presumed to be a response to questions about journalistic ethics and combative style, especially coming in the wake of the huge settlement negotiated by Fox after reports of knowingly falsifying the news.

Is this a reassuring sign that integrity and civility may be returning to news reporting, or is it more likely that networks feel the need to appear responsive to complaints about the behavior of their frontmen?

And if we can’t say for sure, how can we as individuals respond to media giants’ irresponsible practices in pursuit of ratings? Is the system hopelessly out of control, or is there some way we can help the pendulum swing back toward corporate responsibility? Should we expect substantive change, or will new players most likely take up the old roles again?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Leslie Flowers is a certified business consultant and coach and author of eight books, guiding clients with a hybrid program of timeless business principles, universal law, and achievement mastery for fifteen years.

Tresha Moreland, is an executive strategist and Principal Organizational and Leadership Consultant with HR-C Suite, LLC.

Dr. Eric Zabiegalski is a technical and organization consultant, professor of HR management, and author of Unthink: All you have to do is Nothing.

Join us on LinkedIn Live Wednesday at 5:00 pm ET.

#ethics #media #cablenews #foxnews #CNN

What happens when we sabotage our own efforts to promote values by sending contradictory messages?

That's the ethics challenge the panel takes up when Natalia Alvarez, Ph.D., JC Glick, and Lovelda Vincenzi join me to Grapple with the Gray.

A teacher at the private Girls’ Day School Trust in the UK was recently ordered to apologize and subsequently told her contract would not be renewed after her class of 11-year-old students protested that her comments were offensive.

Her crime: Addressing the class with the words, “Good Afternoon, Girls.” Apparently, the students complained that the teacher “misgendered” them, since not all of them identify as female.

The school website states the following:

“The Girls’ Day School Trust is the UK’s leading family of 25 independent girls’ schools including two academies. In all of our schools, academic excellence is a given – at the GDST we develop character beyond the curriculum.

“Ensuring our girls are confident and fearless, determined to show what they can do. Nothing holds our girls back – they’re encouraged to embrace every role and subject. This is the GDST Difference.”

Without getting into the topic of gender identity, is there something incongruous about a self-named girls day school referring to students as “girls” on its own website while disciplining a teacher for calling students “girls”? Is the school indulging a double standard that undermines its educational integrity, or is there some justification for the distinction?

If character development is an educational value, shouldn’t that involve addressing grievances in a non-confrontational and non-punitive way? Would the school serve its students better by modeling how to resolve differences of belief and opinion through civil discourse rather than combativeness?

Finally, how else might the school administration have addressed student complaints?

#ethics #education #culture #leadership #grappling

A close friend shares with you her hurt and outrage. When the subject of the Holocaust came up in social studies class, a teacher told your friend’s teenage son that he should go back to Auschwitz.

The boy, who had previously been proud and open about his Jewish identity, has now abandoned all outward signs of being Jewish. Your friend reported the incident to both the principal and to the school board, but there is no indication that any action was taken against the teacher.

Although you are not Jewish yourself, or perhaps because you’re not Jewish, you feel duty-bound to speak out. You write an op-ed in the local paper outlining these events. You don’t mention any names, but you do mention the school district.

Instead of being grateful for your support, your friend is furious with you. There are very few Jews in the school district, and her son is now terrified of being singled out and possibly targeted by other students. Your friend says that you had no right to publish the article, and that you have compromised her son’s safety and well-being.

Were you wrong to publish the article?

In general, how do we evaluate situations where upholding our principles may cause collateral damage to others, especially children? If it’s wrong to speak up and wrong to stay silent, what other options do we have?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Christopher Bauer, PhD, CSP, CFS is a Speaker, Author, and Consultant on Ethics, Compliance, and Accountability.

Kimberly Davis is an author, TEDx speaker, and founder of the Brave Leadership University, leading development programs world-wide, around authentic leadership, purpose, presence, and influence.

Catherine Fitzgerald is a writer, speaker, certified coach, and founder of Brass Tacks With Heart-executive coaching. She helps founders, owners, and C-Suite Executives and their teams to build businesses that fuel their lives, not consume them.

"I can do what I want."

That's true. But what do I really want? And what should I really want?

Charity is a foundational value of civil society. The Bible mandates a tithe, which the sages interpret to mean between 10 and 20 percent of one’s income. The government gives tax breaks to encourage charitable donations; and wealthy philanthropists are known to give away billions of dollars.

But what if I’m donating 20 percent or more of my income to charity and I have plenty left over: Is there anything wrong ethically about having a fleet of exotic cars, a private yacht costing hundreds of millions, or spending 2 million dollars on a birthday party? What about space tourism, custom designer clothes, or owning multiple 20-room estates around the world?

Presumably, there’s nothing wrong with having nice things or taking vacations, but is there ever a limit? Is it defensible to argue that the luxury industry provides jobs, or is that a smokescreen -- especially in light of stories like the reported slave labor conditions where Fiji water is produced?

We don’t want the government controlling the choices we make, but when we live a life of excess just because we can afford it, does that undermine the principle of self-discipline and responsible stewardship of the planet that should be part of our system of core values?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Jennifer H. Elder, is a CPA and Certified Speaking Professional who helps leaders future-proof their businesses by making smart decisions and staying ethical.

Tim Hawkes is managing director of Unlimited Potential Coaching Specialists in the UK and director of global operations. He is an international speaker and works with organizations to develop organizational culture.

Mark O'Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, helping companies add innovation to their mindsets and their operations to create discernible competitive advantage

Should we expect objective truth in art, or does creative license allow ignoring facts in order to tell a more compelling story?

Few things in life are black and white. That’s why we have to learn to Grapple with the Gray.

This episode's ethics challenge:

Popular movies are often introduced with the message, “Based on true events,” implying a reasonably accurate depiction of reality. We take it for granted that there may be a bit of poetic license, but we probably expect that the basic facts of the story will be authentically represented.

But that’s not always the case.

The movie Remember the Titans is about Herman Boone, a black football coach in the deep south in the 1970s. In the movie, his team was the only racially integrated team in the conference. In reality, all the teams were integrated by then.

In the movie Cinderella Man, boxing champion James Braddock goes into the ring against Max Baer, who had killed another boxer in a previous fight. The movie portrays Baer as a vicious killer. In reality, he was horrified by his opponent's death and had to be convinced not to retire from boxing.

In the movie Argo, the final scene shows Iranian security officials chasing the American plane down the tarmac as it carries the American escapees to safety. The scene was a Hollywood fabrication.

What about historical fiction in general: does it bring history to life or does it blur the lines between fact and fiction?

It’s been said that you shouldn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. What responsibility do storytellers have to be truthful? When do we cross the line from poetic license into the realm of fantasy or deception? What are the effects on society when the truth isn’t good enough to keep an audience engaged?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Sarah Elkins is a communication and leadership coach, using the power of storytelling to connect, engage, and inspire.

Mark O'Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, helping Companies Manage Their Brands, Solve Their Problems, and Simplify the Complex.

Matthew Rosenberg teaches communication, argumentation, and critical discourse at Oregon State University.