Is our confusion between panic and panacea leading us into social chaos?

That's the question that underlines the conversation when Christopher Bauer, PhD, CSP, CFS, 🟦 Melissa Hughes, Ph.D., and Mary Beth Molloy join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

Recently, Oprah Winfrey apologized for the part she played in promoting unhealthy and unrealistic diets.

She said one of her “biggest regrets," is bringing out 67 pounds of animal fat onto her TV show stage in 1998 to illustrate how much weight she had recently lost. Indeed, throughout her career the media has never tired of reporting on her weight going up and down.

On the one hand, multiple online health sites decry the harmful effects of “fat-shaming.” On the other hand, the CDC website highlights the need to “reverse the obesity epidemic” by encouraging community efforts to focus on supporting healthy eating and active living in a variety of settings.

What are some other examples of mixed messages being broadcast throughout our society? In general, are we becoming simultaneously hypersensitive and hypercritical, whitewashing unhealthy or unattractive behavior while catastrophizing where those behaviors are leading us? 

If our culture perpetually waffles between underplaying and overreacting to the problems we need to address, how can leaders effectively promote positive change?

Meet this week’s panelists:

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

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

Mary Beth Molloy is a Certified Executive Coach. She is President of MBM Elevate, CEO Group Chair of Vistage Worldwide, Inc., and national board member of Per Scholas, a nonprofit that provides no-cost technical training to individuals often excluded from tech careers.

#ethics 

#culture 

#perspective 

#values 

#grappling

Do we prevent ourselves from getting anything by trying to get everything?

That's the question that underlies the discussion when Jeff Koziatek, 🟦 Mark O'Brien, and Annette Taylor join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our scenario:

On May 1st, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill prohibiting the production and sale of lab-grown meat. When I read the headline, I couldn’t help wondering why.

It seems that Bill Gates, a heavy investor in the industry, has publicly urged governments to enact legislation to shift toward 100% synthetic meat and eventually ban real meat. The Florida law represents a backlash against corporate and government overreach that attempts to limit personal choice and control private conduct.

The irony, or course, is that by outlawing synthetic meat altogether, the legislation does exactly what it is designed to prevent.

So who bears most of the blame here? Advocates for social engineering who seek to control behavior and limit choice, or the government for overreacting when it could just as easily have passed a bill guaranteeing free access to and availability of natural meat?

In general, how many movements either self-destruct or produce needless controversy by inciting conflict rather than seeking principled compromise? Why do so many leaders seem incapable of recognizing that gradual implementation of innovative ideas is a far more effective way of producing positive change?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Jeff Koziatek is a certified speaker and peak performance coach, helping professionals to navigate change, sharpen focus, avoid burnout, and make a difference. He is also one of St. Louis Business Monthly's 100 St. Louisans you should know.

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.

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 

#communication 

#values 

#negotiation 

#leadership

When do some people's problems become everybody's problems?

That's the question driving the conversation when 🟦 Jeff Ikler, Sarah Kalmeta, and S. Scott Mason join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

“With the stroke of his pen,” said Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, “Joe Biden is attempting to saddle working Missourians with a half trillion dollars in college debt."

On the one hand, college debt poses an enormous burden, especially for young people just entering the workforce. Freeing them from that weight will relieve tremendous stress and pressure as they try to establish themselves professionally.

On the other hand, many students chose to major in subjects that offer no clear career pathway. Is it not their fault, or their parents’ fault, or their educational institution’s fault that they now face economic hardship? In any event, why should that responsibility be transferred to taxpayers?

And what about those who have been dutifully paying back their loans for years? Why should they be excluded? NYU recently announced free medical school, but my recently graduated daughter in law didn’t qualify, which she thinks is horribly unfair.

My wife took out loans for her teachers certification and masters programs, which were eventually forgiven because of her choice of career. Are those who work in some form of public service more deserving of forgiveness than others?

Without getting into the weeds of presidential or congressional authority, can we reasonably defend the well-intentioned initiative of tuition forgiveness against claims that it unfairly and unequally shifts the burden from students onto the wider population?

Meet this week’s panelists:


Jeff Ikler is Director of Quetico Executive Career and Personal Leadership Coaching, host of the podcast Getting Unstuck—Cultivating Curiosity, and co-host of the podcast Cultivating Resilience: A Whole Community Approach to Alleviating Trauma in Schools.



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.


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
#education
#culture
#accountability
#grappling

Is doing the wrong thing ever the right thing?

That classic ethical question underscores the conversation when Kimberly Davis, Peter Winick, and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

True story:

An elderly Jewish man with late stage cancer was given only a few weeks to live by his doctors. His final wish was to spend his last days in Israel and be buried there, so he booked a flight and made arrangements for hospice care when he arrived.

A woman affiliated with the hospice organization volunteered to accompany him to the airport to ensure that he safely boarded his flight. However, when they arrived at the counter, the gate agent looked at the gentleman, immediately took note of his frail appearance, and declared that it was unsafe for him to fly, denying him permission to board the plane.

After several unsuccessful attempts to convince the agent to reconsider, the woman took off her string of pearls, handed them to the agent, and said they were his if he let the man board the flight, which he did. The woman did not ask for any compensation from the elderly passenger, who never even learned her last name. He boarded the plane and never heard from her again.

Was the woman a hero for sacrificing her precious necklace, or was she a criminal for bribing the gate agent? Was the gate agent being overly officious, or simply following protocol? Were the airline restrictions too strict, too ambiguous, or entirely reasonable to avoid a mid-air emergency?

Meet this week’s panelists:

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.

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.

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

#ethics
#culture
#compassion
#perspective
#grappling

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

This is one of my all time favorite conversations.  Enjoy this episode from the archives!

Here is our topic:

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

When does fun and games become deceitful manipulation? That's the topic the ethics panel takes up when Paul Edwards, Catherine Fitzgerald, and Frank Zaccari join me to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

A husband and wife are sitting on the couch watching TV. The wife hears her phone chirp, then realizes she left it in the kitchen.

She goes to get the phone and checks to see who texted her. The message is from her husband: “Since you’re in the kitchen, please bring more chips and a beer when you come back.”

Has the husband acted ethically? What should the wife do?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Paul Edwards used to drive large military vehicles through the deserts of the Middle East, armed with an assault rifle. Today, his occupation of ghostwriting requires him to ask questions first, and shoot later.”

Catherine Fitzgerald is a speaker, writer, certified coach, and founder of BrassTacksWithHeart - Executive Coaching. She works with founders and their leaders as they navigate the choppy waters of aligning people, performance, and profits.

Frank Zaccari is a Business and Organizational Development Expert, keynote speaker, TV and podcast host, 4X Amazon bestselling author, and Air Force veteran.

White collar vs. blue collar criminals: Who deserves to serve more time?

That's the question the ethics panel takes up when JC Glick, 🔆 Anne Nevel, CAE, and Andre van Heerden join me to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our scenario:

Last week, Joseph Tyler was sentenced to eight years in state prison and ordered to pay $23,000 in restitution to older Coloradans that he defrauded in a tree-trimming scam after pleading guilty to 51 counts of theft targeting at risk victims, a class three felony, and to theft, a class five felony.

In other headlines, cryptocurrency CEO and billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried faces the possibility of 100 years in prison for fraud and embezzlement. According to claims, hundreds of thousands of investors suffered irreparable financial harm, which Bankman-Fried denies and for which he has expressed no remorse. Many compare him to Bernie Madoff, who received an effective life sentence for massive embezzlement and subsequently died in prison.

Meanwhile, reports of unenforced shoplifting laws fill the headlines in cities across the U.S. A state prosecutor in Florida reportedly has a history of downgrading or dropping charges in serious criminal cases, resulting in released offenders committing more egregious crimes. (She was recently suspended by Governor Ron DeSantis.)

In Chicago, a convicted felon awaiting trial for murder has been released with electronic surveillance, while a businessman with no criminal record has been held in solitary confinement for 18 months over a divorce dispute.

On the one hand, we want white collar criminals to be held accountable, not merely get a slap on the wrist. On the other hand, there seems to be a disproportionate response showing more leniency to violent offenders. Inevitably, any perception of inequity undermines respect for the law, sows distrust in our judicial system, and contributes to a less stable society.

How do we address the apparent inequities of justice in an effort to preserve or restore confidence in our systems?

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 CEO of the Commit Foundation, an organization that helps high-performance veterans find their next adventure.

Anne Nevel is the Vice President of Education for a trade association and enjoys connecting the right people to the right projects to promote successful collaboration and partnership.

Andre van Heerden is Director of The Power of Integrity Ltd, drawing on the perspectives of history and philosophy to show how leadership drives performance by determining corporate culture.

Which is worse: suspicion or gullibility? And do we actually have to choose?

Those are the questions that drive my conversation with the incomparable Cy Wakeman when she joins me to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

In a recent op ed posted in The Hill, Disaster Avoidance Expert Gleb Tsipursky writes:

“In the brave new world of hybrid work, where the lines between office and home are blurred, employers are navigating uncharted waters. Some have resorted to a draconian approach, implementing surveillance measures to monitor their employees’ productivity.”

Mr. Tsipursky goes on to describe how corporations such as JP Morgan and Barclays Bank seem to be suffering from “productivity paranoia,” leading them to track employee emails and even keystrokes.

Is it working? According to Glassdoor, 41% of employees feel less productive while being closely monitored. And according to HBR, surveillance makes employees “substantially more likely to engage in various rule-breaking behaviors, such as taking unapproved breaks, disregarding instructions, damaging workplace property, and even stealing office equipment.”

Apparently, the lack of trust makes people less trustworthy. It seems reasonable that employers want to ensure that employees are actually doing their jobs. So how can bosses and managers implement a trust-but-verify protocol that promotes worker integrity while avoiding the creation of a toxic culture? And what lessons can we take from these observations to help us have healthier relationships both in the office and outside of work as well?

***

Cy Wakeman is a drama researcher, international leadership speaker, consultant, and founder of Reality-Based Leadership. She is the author of four books, including the NY Times Bestseller, The Reality-Based Rules of the Workplace: Know What Boosts Your Value, Kills Your Chances, and Will Make You Happier and, most recently, Life’s Messy, Live Happy. Described as “the secret weapon to restoring sanity to the workplace,” Cy was voted in the top 100 leadership professionals to follow on twitter for 7 years in a row. For the last three years, she has ranked #1 among the Global Gurus list of Top 30 Leadership Professionals across the globe.

Passion is a good thing. Except, perhaps, when it's not. How can we tell where to draw the line?

That's the question the ethics panel takes up when Toni McLelland MSc FRSA, Cathleen O’Sullivan, and Colin D Smith join me for a special transatlantic episode of Grappling with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

With Taylor Swift’s current Eras tour the most successful in history, it’s inevitable that many Swifties sometimes end up on the same flights headed for the same concerts. A recent viral TikTok video shows nearly the entire contingent of passengers, together with the flight attendants, joining in a sing-a-long at 40,000 feet.

A few passengers, however, appear less than enthusiastic. In the comments, reactions were predictably mixed:

One person wrote: “I feel bad for other passengers, especially those with sensory issues, claustrophobia, or anxiety disorders.” 

Another said, “I would seriously cry if I was on that plane – this is my worst fear.” Some referred to the flight as “torture” or “their personal hell,” joking that they would escape through the emergency exit if the sing-along happened to them.

Here’s my personal favorite: “First I thought the plane was going down or something, then I realised they are just singing Taylor Swift and thought.. that's worse.”

Clearly, the large majority of passengers were enjoying themselves. Does that give them the right to inflict discomfort on the minority? Or should the few nay-sayers just grin and bear it since so many others are getting so much pleasure from it?

What about the flight attendants? Should they participate, try to shut it down, or simply remain neutral? And if it should be stopped, how should that be handled?

Meet the panelists:

Toni McLelland is Founder and Director of 1st Life Group. She is a Critical Friend & Business Mentor in Social Justice, Mobility & Impact leading sustainable change through DEIB & Compassion.

Cathleen O’Sullivan is a leadership coach and host of the Legendary Leaders podcast. She helps female leaders grow their careers, their mindset, their confidence and sense of self-worth while enabling them to live a more balanced life that offers more time, more health and more fun!

Colin Smith aka The Listener, works with leaders and professionals to improve the listening, thinking and relationships skills of individuals and teams.