Grappling with the Gray

Is exaggeration just another synonym for lying?

That the question that drives the conversation when Jennifer H. Elder, CSP, CPA, JC Glick, and ☘️Mark O'Brien join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

Speaking truth to power is one of the foundational principles of any society built on ethics and the rule of law.

Senator Mark Kelly claims that’s what he was doing when he joined five other lawmakers urging service members to refuse illegal orders from their superiors, alluding to military strikes against cartel drug runners. Writing for National Review, Andrew McCarthy argues convincingly that, while Senator Kelly is not guilty of sedition (of which he has been accused), his message was ill-advised and wrongheaded.

Without getting into the weeds of legal definitions, we might frame the issue as politicizing the military vs. weaponizing the justice system. Senator Kelly’s message threatens to disrupt military efficiency by undermining the chain of command, while charges of criminality seemingly overstate objections to the propriety of the message.

If we insist on exaggerating or otherwise misrepresenting both justification for our positions and claims against our ideological opponents, do we not make it impossible to honestly debate the issues and work toward reasoned resolutions? How have we ended up in a place where rhetoric is more valued than substance? And what can we do about it?

Meet the panel:

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

JC Glick is a retired Army Ranger Lieutenant Colonel. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as CEO of the Commit Foundation, an organization that helps high-performance veterans find their next adventure.

Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs.

#ethics 

#leadership 

#integrity 

#accountability 

#culture

Does celebrity impose a higher standard of social responsibility?

That's the question that drives the conversation when Christopher Bauer, Diane Helbig, and Peter Winick join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

In recent weeks, two stories from the wide world of sports have made the headlines.

In one, the FBI announced it had conducted a "massive, nationwide takedown" of two separate and illegal poker and sports-betting schemes with ties to Mafia families. The schemes reportedly spanned years and involved illicit gains from wire fraud, money laundering, extortion and gambling.

More recently, Boston College senior Shane Hanafin was the only player to stand as the band played the alma mater after the last game of the season. He then remained on the football field for an hour. Despite a disappointing 1-10 record for the year, Shane felt compelled to linger as a demonstration of his gratitude for the opportunity to play. Fans and social media viewers alike found the story touching and inspiring.

Star players make a fortune playing their games and endorsing products. Some of them leverage their sports careers to go into politics or acting. Young children of all ages look up to them as role models.

So here’s the question: Does their notoriety impose upon them an obligation to hold themselves to a high standard of personal integrity? 

When they engage in scandalous behavior, are they more guilty than the average citizen? If we’ve come to expect little in moral discipline from our elected officials, is it reasonable for us to expect anything more from celebrity athletes?

Meet the panel:

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

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

Peter Winick works with individuals and organizations to build and grow revenue streams through their thought leadership platforms and is host of the Leveraging Thought Leadership podcast.

#ethics 

#leadership 

#integrity 

#accountability 

#culture

Can the greater good become an excuse for doing bad?

That's the question that drives the conversation when ☘️Mark O'Brien, S. Scott Mason, and • Kirsten Yurich join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic.

Revenue from state lotteries goes to support a host of social causes, including education, environment, and veterans, among others. However, Fortune Magazine reported last year that: 

“The average adult living in the poorest 1 percent of zip codes spends almost 5 percent (or $600 annually) of their income on lottery tickets, per the analysis. . . . Those living in the wealthiest 1 percent of zip codes spend only $150 on tickets, amounting to 0.15 percent of their paycheck.”

Writing for National Review, Ben Connolly argues that the lottery is essentially a tax on the poor, observing that:

“If you eliminated serial ticket buyers, and states only took money from people who bought a lottery ticket once a year on their birthday, state lotteries probably wouldn’t even cover their costs.”

He goes on to argue that:

“Gambling is a vice. It is not a social good. It is not an individual good. One of the roles of the conservative in society is to frown upon vices, to enforce social stigma against those activities that harm both the individual and society. Whether or not you believe that adults should be free to make their own choices about their money, including choosing to waste it on sports betting or lotteries, every conservative [and even libertarian] should agree that states shouldn’t be profiting from a vice.”

We recognize that drug addiction undermines the health of our society. Is gambling addiction different? Should gambling be outlawed, or at least controlled, like drugs? And if not, does it then matter if government profits from it?

Meet the panel:

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

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.

Kirsten Yurich is an Organizational Performance Management Consultant, Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc., and Adjunct Professor of Education at Felician University.

#ethics 

#culture 

#accountability 

#leadership 

#socialgood

How many of the issues we fight about are worth fighting about?

That’s the question that drives the conversation when Krista Crawford, Ph.D., MBA, SPHR, Josh Green, and Jolanta Pomiotlo join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

In a recent article, Politico quoted former First Lady Betty Ford as saying that if the White House West Wing is the “mind” of the nation, then the East Wing — the traditional power center for first ladies — is the “heart.”

The implication seems to be that Donald Trump’s tearing down of the East Wing to build a new ballroom is an assault on history.

The president argues that the tents currently used for big events are unsightly, expensive, and cause damage to the White House lawn. Critics condemn the project as a “symbolic blow” to the East Wing’s legacy as a place where women made history.

In 1948, Harry Truman was widely criticized for constructing the now-famous balcony. Truman explained that the awnings that shaded the White House facade were unsightly, and that the balconies would pay for themselves in a few years through reduced electricity consumption. (He also had the entire interior of the building gutted and rebuilt.)

Before that, Thomas Jefferson was castigated for installing eastern and western colonnades, which were later replaced by Teddy Roosevelt.

Are these past and present cases comparable? Is the president’s failure to navigate the standard public review process an act of imperial disregard for the law of merely cutting through red tape?

In short, is this issue just the latest partisan bickering blown out of proportion, or is it really a subject worthy of debate?

Meet the panel:

Krista Crawford is a human resource consultant, adjunct instructor at Virginia Tech and Champlain College, and Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc.

Josh Green is a keynote speaker and TEDx speaker. He advises leaders in business strategy, business growth, and leadership development.

Jolanta Pomiotlo is Vice President of Information Technology for EXSIF Worldwide who manages innovative initiatives aimed at reducing operating costs, improving profit, and growing revenue.

#ethics #leadership #integrity #accountability #culture

Why are we so enthusiastically embracing our own dumbness?

That's the question that drives the conversation when Deb Coviello, Stewart Wiggins, and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel for another episode of Grappling with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

You look over the report written by a team of your employees and smile inwardly. It’s professionally formatted, with table of contents, meaningful-sounding headlines, and compelling bullet points.

But as you begin reading through it, your internal smile fades. You quickly recognize it was AI generated, with no human contribution whatsoever. As polished as it looks on the surface, when "you dig deeper,” as one workplace expert put it, “it lacks real substance and meaning, and may not make any sense at all."

Now you need to expend time and effort calling in the team, explaining why their work is unsatisfactory, and give them clearer guidelines for getting the job done… or simply do it yourself.

There’s a new word to describe this: Workslop, defined by HBR as AI generated work content that masquerades as good work, but lacks the substance to meaningfully advance a given task.

Of 1,150 U.S.-based full-time employees across industries, 40% report have received workslop in the last month. HBR estimates for an organization of 10,000 workers, this results in over $9 million per year in lost productivity.

Why is this happening? Is it inevitable that every new tool accelerates our collective laziness and irresponsibility, or is something else going on? And what can we do about it?

Meet the panel:

Deb Coviello, aka 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.

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

Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications.

#ethics 

#leadership 

#integrity 

#accountability 

#culture

Do sides matter any more?

That's the question that will drive the discussion when Kimberly Davis, Naya Lekht, PhD, and ☘️Mark O'Brien join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

Writing last week in the Wall Street Journal, Cal State University political science Professor Kevin Wallsten cited a national survey he conducted last year. Asked about “using violence to stop a speech” promoting a “personally offensive” position, 80% percent of Americans responded “never acceptable.” The percentage of republicans was only marginally more than democrats.

However, generational responses tell a different story. Here’s the breakdown of respondents who refused to condone using violence to suppress speech under any circumstances:

Boomers – 93%
Gen X – 86%
Millennials – 71%
Gen Z – 58%

This has nothing to do with hate speech, merely free speech. Watching clips of Charlie Kirk’s campus debates, it’s hard to find an example of him belittling or insulting those who challenged him. He rallied an impressive library of facts and offered coherent arguments to make his points. There were few who could hold their own with him in debate, and the college crowds often responded with applause.

It’s hard not to draw comparisons with Socrates, condemned to drink poison for the crime of forcing people to confront the inconsistencies of their own views. With more than 4 out of 10 young people believing that violence is an acceptable response to disagreement, how do we prevent society from disintegrating into chaos, both nationally and internationally? How do you engage others in discourse when they’ve already concluded that you’re not only wrong, but dangerously evil?

Meet the panel:

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.

Naya Lekht is a research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, promoting synergy between self-awareness and the world which we observe.

Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs.

#ethics 

#culture 

#accountability 

#generations 

#leadership

Does bad behavior ever justify bad behavior?

That's the question that drives the conversation when Natalie Renee Parker and N. Wyman Winbush II, Captain USNR-Retired, MBA join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

Congressional gerrymandering has been going on in America for over a century. Originally, it was used to marginalize black voters by lumping them into homogenous districts, thereby diluting their political influence state- and country-wide. Lately, it’s become a weapon of Republicans against Democrats, and Democrats against Republicans.

After Texas Republicans began implementing their plan to gain five seats in congress by redrawing district lines, California Governor Gavin Newsom declared he would respond by doing the same thing in his state. Which raises the age-old question: do two wrongs make a right?

In fact, Texas could make (and has made) exactly the same claim. Massachusetts has had 5 Republican governors out of the last seven, yet the state doesn’t have one single Republican representative. 40 percent of New Englanders historically vote Republican, yet they have virtually no representation in the House.

Arguing “they started it” is hardly a strategy to affect meaningful change. The 2019 Supreme Court decision not to interfere in state redistricting may have been the right choice with respect to legal principle, but it left the door open to the kind of political range war we’re witnessing now.

With the existence of various software systems to guide honest map-drawing, it’s a matter of will rather than way. If leaders continue playing one identity group against the other to protect their own power, how is democracy supposed to function? And what can We the People do about it?

Meet the panel:

Natalie Renee Parker is a senior Executive Leadership Coach and consultant, Helping companies increase their impact by creating healthy cultures and unleashing the power of people.

Wyman Winbush, aka the Wisdom Broker, is a retired US Navy captain, a Professional Speaker-Trainer, and Multi-Disciplined Problem Solver, helping leaders become better leaders and high-performance-minded individuals to exceed their expectations.

#ethics 

#leadership 

#integrity 

#accountability 

#culture

“Have you ever pretended to hold more progressive views than you truly endorse to succeed socially or academically?”

That’s the question posed by The Hill, which drives the conversation as Ida Tetlock, Stan B. Walters, and Annie Yatch join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

In confidential interviews with 1,452 undergraduate students at Northwestern University and the University of Michigan, 88 percent of respondents answered yes.

The pressure to conform can be nearly irresistible. For good reason many are concerned by reports that all 87 members of NPR’s executive board are registered democrats and that democrats outnumber republicans among Yale faculty by 28 to 1.

Truth cannot survive in an echo chamber. It thrives on constructive disagreement and spirited debate. That’s why it would be equally disturbing if republicans outnumbered democrats by a similar margin.

But there may be a deeper concern than journalistic or academic integrity. According to The Hill, “73 percent of students reported mistrust in conversations about these values with close friends. Nearly half said they routinely conceal beliefs in intimate relationships for fear of ideological fallout.”

In other words, we’re witnessing a culture in which young people are afraid to be honest in their closest relationships, which implies that they are likely mistrustful of those whom they most depend on for emotional and psychological well-being.

Should we be sounding the alarm over a system that is setting up young people for ever-escalating dysfunction? If not, why not? If so, what can we do about it?

Meet the panel:

Ida Tetlock serves clients as a professional organizer, life manager, and advocate. She is also a student of Thanatology and death doula candidate.

Stan Walters, aka The Lie Guy, teaches government agencies, military units, and law enforcement to uncover the truth, deliver justice, and make critical decisions in high-stakes situations.

Annie Yatch is founder and CEO of Northstar Leadership, helping corporate professionals convert instinctual behaviors into empathy-driven leadership.

Are we over-generalizing about identity groups?

That's the question that drives the conversation when Sean Flaherty, Sarah Kalmeta, and Bronson Taylor join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

Six years ago, Starbucks introduced a new model: mobile-only pickup stores targeting Gen Z’s taste for frictionless experience. Last week, CEO Brian Niccol declared the experiment a failure, announcing that all these stores would be shuttered or converted by the end of next year.

So what happened? Did Starbucks do market research? Was their study flawed? Has Gen Z changed their preferences in the last half-decade? Or is it simply impractical to generalize the preferences of an entire generation?

Even had the research been correct, since Starbucks built its empire on the warmth and human connection of a corner coffee house, were they destined to fail by attempting to change who they are?

On the one hand, businesses that don’t adapt can quickly fail, like Blockbuster and Eastman Kodak. On the other hand, trying to adapt to every shifting trend may well lead to inauthenticity and mediocrity.

Is this the symptom of a culture in which we try to be everything to everyone? Is it a reflection of the erosion of core values that used to be universal? How can we balance agility with brand integrity, and what are the risks straying too far in either direction?

Meet the panel:

Sean Flaherty is CEO of Advanced Leadership Concepts, serving executive teams by unlocking the science of leadership with powerful tools that transform and inspire.

Sarah Kalmeta, aka Sarah the Pivoter, is a speaker, author and relentless truthseeker. She is founder of Pivot Point International, a high performance consulting company.

Bronson Taylor is a student at Oregon State University, majoring in Education with a math focus, and possibly the first Gen Z guest on this program.

Can empathy be taken too far? If so, where's the line?

These are the questions that drive  the conversation when Jennifer Elder, Jeff Ikler, and Tomer Yogev join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

On Memorial Day, Delta Flight 694 from Detroit to Los Angeles diverted to Minneapolis to provide emergency medical care… not for a passenger, but for a passenger’s pet dog.

An airline spokesman told Newsweek that, "The safety of our customers and people comes before everything else at Delta. That's why flight 694 diverted to ensure a cabin pet that became ill received proper care."

The emergency landing delayed 181 passengers from reaching their destination by two-and-a-half-hours.

There’s no question that the life of a human being justifies inconveniencing even a few hundred paying passengers. But does the same calculus apply to animals? Would the airline have made the same call had the pet been a hamster, a lizard, or a canary?

Pet owners may agree that “dogs are people, too.” But does that make it so? Is there a danger that, by projecting too much humanity onto animals, we undermine the sanctity of human life as a foundational principle of civil society?

For years, the Great Apes Project has lobbied to accord full human rights to gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees. Is this a noble effort or an ideological perversion? Does it naturally follow that one of its most prominent advocates, former Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singer, has also been cited as one of the most vocal supporters of euthanasia?

Is it insensitive to value the convenience of a planeful of people above the life of a beloved pet, or is it recognizing a more existential moral boundary?

Meet the panel:

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

Jeff Ikler is a certified executive career coach. He is the director of Quetico Executive Career and Personal Leadership Coaching, co-host of the Getting Unstuck – Cultivating Curiosity podcast, and author of the weekly Substack, "Walking in the Woods."

Tomer Yogev, is an executive coach and Co-Creator of the Big Joy Theory, a transformative movement that begins with each person stepping into their own light, despite the shadows and storms.