Grappling with the Gray

Is misrepresentation ever justified if it motivates beneficial action?

Can the greater good or a higher truth provide an excuse for lying?

What are the unintended consequences of the ends justifying the means?

These are some of the topics addressed when the panelists grapple with the gray.

This week's ethics challenge:

In February, 2017, Dr. John Bates made headlines by claiming that his former boss, Thomas Karl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, had knowingly misrepresented data to influence government policy on global warming.

Predictably, climate change skeptics railed against the corruption of the scientific community, while climate change advocates charged Dr. Bates with exaggerating his claims.

For the sake of our discussion, let’s assume that the charges are true. If so, it’s likely that Dr. Karl was motivated by the purest intentions, that he wanted to spur action to prevent what he genuinely believed to be the devastating effects of global warming, and that he viewed the data as representing an anomaly rather than a larger global trend.

Aside from the climate change debate, could it ever be justified to doctor facts or embellish the “story” told by the data to motivate public action in a way that serves the greater good?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Laura Elizabeth Gray is a Passionate People Connector, Columnist, Author, and Development Director of The ALS Association Northern Ohio Chapter

Jonathan Ross is an executive for a defense manufacturing company, writer, and management and communications consultant as time allows.

Annette Simmons is a speaker, trainer, consultant, and author of The Story Factor -- named one of the 100 Best Business Books of All Time.

Is a crime ever victimless, even where there really are no victims?

If I take someone else's idea but then make it my own, how much have I actually stolen?

If pursing the right course demands an act of piracy, can piracy itself be the right course?

These are some of the topics addressed when this week's panel grapples with the gray.

This episode's ethics challenge:

In the 2019 movie “Yesterday,” struggling musician Jack Malik wakes up one morning to discover that the entire world has forgotten that the Beatles and their music ever existed.  He records their classic hits as his own and becomes a sensation, but eventually he begins to question whether he is entitled to claim the music as his own.

In Jane Hanff Korelitz’s novel The Plot, Jacob Bonner is teaching creative writing at a third-rate MFA program.  One of his students submits a manuscript draft with the most brilliant plot Jacob has ever read.  When he later learns that the student died without completing the manuscript and apparently without heirs.  Jacob steals the plot, publishes the story as his own, and becomes a celebrated author.

In both cases, creative works would have been lost to the world if not for the person who appropriated them.  Since no one lost through their appropriation, did they do anything wrong?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Professor Pete Alexander is Adjunct Marketing Professor at Antioch University, as well as a professional speaker and author on reducing stress in everyday life.

Rosemary Ravinal 🎤 is a public relations expert, C-Suite presentation coach. and creator of the ZoomScore™, a yardstick for measuring the essential elements of success.

Kathryn Woods is a Communications expert, confidence and voice coach, speaker, and speech pathologist. 

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

Here is this episode's ethics challenge:

We’re encouraged to buy reusable shopping bags that make disposable bags unnecessary and thereby help protect the environment. But is that actually a good idea?

In 2019, the top ten grocery stores in Britain reported selling 1.5 billion reusable bags, an average of 54 per household in the UK, arguably ten times more than a family a family needs. In 2018, supermarkets in Britain distributed nearly 20,000 more tons of plastic than they did the year before.

Moreover, much of our home recycling practices are more placebo than cure. Families that fail to sort their trash properly end up contaminating genuine recyclables, jacking up labor and machinery repair costs. For years, much of our recycling was shipped to China for disposal, relocating the problem rather than solving it. And even under ideal conditions, the cost of recycling has often made it financially impractical.

In general, does the illusion of taking positive action encourage complacency, so that we exempt ourselves from implementing practices that might address our problems in a meaningful way?  Or might a public awareness campaign that fails to meet measurable objectives nevertheless help change consumer behavior and so help progressive policies eventually succeed?

Meet this week’s panelists:

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

Mark O'Brien 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

Cris Parker is with us from Sydney, Australia. She is Head of The Ethics Alliance, a community of organizations across sectors that are connected through The Ethics Centre, providing ethics-based counseling, consulting and education programs.

Not everything is black and white.  That's why we have to grapple with the gray.

Here is this episode's ethics challenge:

A woman recently sued Kraft Heinz for $5 million over misleading advertising. The company markets its Velveeta Shells & Cheese as being "ready in 3 1/2 minutes.” In fact, that's the amount of time each cup needs to be microwaved; but it doesn’t include the actual preparation process, from stirring in water to letting the cheese sauce thicken.

The 15-page class-action lawsuit states:

"As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price.”

The plaintiff claims she chose Velveeta over other similar products because of the prep time prominently promised on its label. She wouldn't have bought it "had she known the truth."

As a side note, the plaintiff’s lawyer has reportedly filed over 400 similar lawsuits.

Granted that the preparation time promised was not entirely accurate, can it be considered sufficiently misleading to be considered false advertising?  To what standard should manufacturers and marketers be held?

Is the response of a class action lawsuit and a $5 million claim proportionate, or do such cases do more harm than good by contributing to an already litigious society and straining an already inefficient legal system?

Join us on today at 5:00 pm ET on LinkedIn Live as we dive into this topic on Grappling with the Gray.

Meet this week’s panelists:

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.

Dr. Robyn Odegaard is a Concierge High Performance Psychologist who works with people who have to keep it together because the stakes are too high for them to fall apart.  She is also the host of the Quick Hits Podcast, on which all of today’s panelists have appeared.

Stewart Wiggins is Chief Advisor at Induna Advisors, working to significantly increase company revenue by developing positive client reports and establishing solid business relationships.

Not everything is black and white. That's why we need to grapple with the gray.

Here is this episode's ethics challenge:

Daniel owned a neighborhood restaurant. One day, he received a frantic call from his friend Michael, who owned a local catering business.  “My freezer just broke down.  Can I store a few cases of chickens in your freezer for a week or two until I get mine repaired?”

Daniel had room to spare and was happy to help Michael out.  When Michael arrived with the chickens, Daniel noticed that the expiration date on the cartons was past due.  He pointed this out to Michael, who shrugged it off.

“The expiration date only applies when they’re fresh,” he said.  “Once they’re frozen, you can keep them forever.” Daniel wasn’t so sure, but it was Michael’s business, so he let the matter drop.

Three months later, despite repeated calls from Daniel, Michael still had not picked up his chickens.

One afternoon, Daniel got a call from a nearby restaurateur.  “The inspectors are making surprise visits this week,” he told Daniel.  “They’ve already dropped in on me and they could be at your place any moment.  Make sure you have everything in order.”

Daniel remembered the expiration date on Michael’s chickens.  The inspectors might not agree with Michael’s reasoning and might not believe that Daniel was storing them for someone else.  They might fine him, or even shut him down. Daniel decided he had given Michael enough chances.  He carried the chicken cases into the back alley and tossed them into his Dumpster.

A few hours later, Michael showed up unannounced.  “I’m here for my chickens,” he said with a smile. Daniel explained why he hadn’t been able to hold Michael’s chickens any longer, saying he was free to retrieve them from the Dumpster.  However, in the summer heat the chickens had defrosted enough to attract some local cats, which had rendered the chickens unfit for humans.
Michael demanded that Daniel compensate him for the chickens.  Daniel replied that he had ceased to be responsible when Michael failed to retrieve his chickens on time and after repeated requests to do so.

Does Daniel have to compensate Michael for the chickens?

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.

Jo Erven is an accountant, an auditor, and an ethics speaker, who prides herself on not being your TYPICAL accountant, auditor, or ethics speaker.  She is the author of Becoming the Everyday Ethicist.

Diane Wyzga, RN, JD & story consultant is founder of the Engaged Storyism® Method. She helps professionals identify, shape & deliver their messaging stories with value & heart that are understood, remembered, recalled & acted upon.

Not everything is black and white. That's why we need to grapple with the gray.

Let’s face it: we’re all a little neurotic. But when quirks and mild aversions grow into crippling phobias, psychologists may search for novel and creative solutions.

As an antidote for pathological shyness, one psychologist instructed patients to go into department stores and engage salespeople by asking for product information and advice. In some cases, patients were instructed to make purchases, then come back a few days later to return the merchandise.

The concept is simple. Through repeated interactions of this kind, patients gradually become comfortable with approaching strangers, asking for information, and asserting themselves in the normal give-and-take of daily human discourse.

However, this form of therapy depends on the unknowing collaboration of store personnel, potentially interfering with their job of attending to paying customers, distracting them from other work, creating extra work in dealing with returns and restocking, and possibly costing them commissions from real customers.

Is it ethical for the psychologist to treat the patient in a way that might cause even a minor loss and inconvenience to the store and its sales force?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Ozlem Brooke Erol works with growth-mindset leaders who want to create work cultures defined by authentic purpose, harmony, and passion where innovation, engagement, and profit become a natural outcome.

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

Ipek Williamson is an Insight Coach, Meditation Teacher, Speaker, Author, and Change Master who helps people initiate and navigate change in their personal and professional lives.

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

This week's ethics challenge:

From time to time, the makers of soda and sports drinks promote their products through bottle cap lotteries. After opening your drink, you can check online to see if the number printed inside the cap is a winner.

True story. A group of coworkers were sitting together and socializing in the lunchroom. When their break was over, they got up to return to work. That’s when one of them, let’s call her Zelda, noticed that someone -- she didn’t know who -- had left a bottle cap on the table. She recognized it as a lottery cap and picked it up. Later she checked the number and discovered the cap was a million dollar winner.

When the original owner, call him Victor, learned about the winning cap, he claimed that the money was his. When Zelda insisted the cap and the winnings were hers, Victor sued her in New York state court.

Aside from the decision of the court, what are the ethical issues involved in this story? What should Zelda have done, if anything, upon discovering that cap was worth a million dollars? Does Victor have any ethical claim after apparently discarding the cap?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Dave Bricker is a Speaker, Presentation Consultant, and sailing aficionado. He works with leaders and professionals to master the art of business storytelling—on the stage, on the page, or on the screen!
.
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.

Carl Loop, MBA Loop works with organizations that want to increase productivity, engagement and profits by decreasing turnover and burnout. He’s a Keynote Speaker and author of "Mondays Reimagined: Master Your Monday. Win the Week!"

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

Here is our ethics challenge:

There was a time when labor unions were desperately needed to protect workers from despotic bosses, inadequate pay, and odious work conditions. Unions provided a vital service protecting members from unreasonable demands, health hazards, and retaliatory firing, as well as negotiating higher salaries to keep up with the marketplace and inflation.

Over time, however, unions became increasingly political. They often spent huge amounts of dues-revenue to support candidates and policies that many of their members disagreed with and engaged in political activism contrary to values of many workers. Whereas workers once had no recourse against unfair treatment by employers, now they had no recourse against the way union leadership spent their money.

Recent legislation has made it possible for at least some employees to opt out of union membership and not pay union dues. On the one hand, workers should not be forced to pay into an organization that supports policies they disagree with. On the other hand, if the union negotiates higher wages, it doesn’t seem fair that employees who are not paying-members should share benefits with those who are.

How do we balance respecting the values of individual employees who disagree with union activism against the equity of all employees contributing in proportion to the benefits they receive?

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.

Catherine Fitzgerald is owner of Catapult Leadership Group, working with organizational leaders as they navigate the choppy waters of aligning people, performance, and profits.

S. Scott Mason, aka the Myth Slayer, is a Transformational Coach for Executives, Entrepreneurs & Other Leaders, podcast host, and keynote speaker.

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

Here is this episode's scenario:

Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter has renewed debate over free speech vs. responsible speech, over the need for and the dangers of censorship, over standards and double standards.

Granted that implementing equitable policy solutions across social media may be beyond our reach, what about in the workplace: we want employees to feel free to express themselves, but we don’t want to ignore caustic speech and behavior; we want to promote sensitivity and respect, but we don’t want to compel speech; we want to create a culture where employees feel trusted, but we don’t want some employees to abuse our trust in a way that makes other employees uncomfortable in the workplace.

Increasingly, reports indicate that efforts to create a healthier work environment often backfire, with some employees feeling vilified because of their identity and others feeling disempowered or tokenized by possibly well-intentioned efforts to support them.

Given that some individuals are hypersensitive and others are socially clumsy or downright disrespectful, we struggle to set in place policies, checks, and balances to safeguard the dignity of employees without creating an oppressive work atmosphere.

Is it ethical to impose blanket policies that may go beyond their intended goals and produce unintended consequences? Is it ethical to do nothing, if the cure might be worse than the ailment? How do we maintain our ethical balance while trying to improve workplace culture?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Michael de Groot is a storyteller, helping clients bring their business stories alive and is host of the Share Your Story podcast.
.
Lisa K. McDonald is the founder of Career Polish, an Executive Career Coach and Master Mindset Coach who helps successful professionals reach their next phase of career-happy and life-healthy.

Toni McLelland MSc is Founder and Director of 1st Life Group. She is a Critical Friend & Business Mentor in Social Justice, Mobility & Impact.

Do private sins outweigh public virtue, or vice versa?

Does the benefit of the many permit us to overlook the transgressions of the few?

Is it best to leave the past in the past, or does that compromise the integrity of the future?

These are some of the topics we address when this week's ethics panel Grapples with the Gray.

Here is our ethics challenge:

15 years after retirement, a prominent metropolitan city police commissioner passes away.  He was highly effective during his long term of service as both the face of the department to the public and as an advocate for the welfare of his officers.

He was both admired and respected throughout the force and throughout much of the city.  After his retirement, he recorded 60 hours a week as an administrator for a local charity.

However, behind the scenes he was guilty of misuse of power, misappropriation of funds, and other egregious instances of graft.  Upon investigation, the current commissioner discovers that his involvement with the charity was nominal: he showed up infrequently, fulfilled few responsibilities, and used his office for extramarital activities.

Traditionally, former commissioners have always received large-scale funerals, not merely to honor the individual but to honor the office and the institution.  The current commissioner finds himself caught between pressure from top brass to hold the traditional funeral ceremony with full regalia as a show of respect for the department on the one side and his own contempt for the man who abused the power of the office on the other.

What are the current commissioner’s options, and how should he decide what to do?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Laura Gray is a Passionate People Connector, Columnist, Author, and Development Director of The ALS Association Northern Ohio Chapter

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

Peter Winick is the founder and CEO of Thought Leadership Leverage and host of the Leveraging Thought Leadership podcast.