Grappling with the Gray

How do we weigh quantifiable costs against intangible benefits?

That's the question that drives the conversation when Catherine Fitzgerald, Sven Lauch, and Stewart Wiggins join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

A recent documentary about the Blue Angels profiles the extraordinary discipline required to fly fighter jets in formation a mere 12 - 18 inches apart from one another and perform a variety of other aerobatic stunts. The film portrays the dedication of the team and the eagerness of navy pilots to join their ranks to perform heart-stopping aerial stunts.

However, heart-stopping may be a bit too descriptive, as nearly ten percent of Blue Angel pilots have died on the job since the team formed in 1946, most of them due to human error. The flying team was the brainchild of Admiral Chester Nimitz, who hoped that flying exhibitions would boost Navy morale while gaining public and political support for a larger defense budget.

The airshows reportedly cost taxpayers $35 million dollars a year, consume massive amounts of fuel, seem to flout concerns about climate change, and produce deafening noise pollution. One columnist observed that the Blue Angel budget could feed all homeless veterans for over a month, and headlines occasionally appear about pilots protesting the danger of the maneuvers they are commanded to perform. Nevertheless, the performances remain tremendously popular.

The arguments for the shows and against the shows are both entirely defensible. How do we evaluate intangibles like public and service member morale against quantifiable objections concerning cost, safety, and environmental impact? If we want to be completely practical, we should do away with holiday parades, NASCAR, and the NFL, shouldn’t we? Or should we?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Catherine Fitzgerald is a speaker, writer, certified coach, and founder of BrassTacksWithHeart - Business Advising. She works with founders and CEOs seeking to align their people, performance, and profits. as they navigate the choppy waters of scaling their thriving businesses. 

Sven Lauch comes to us from Plymouth, England. He is Director of Eyes Up Training Limited, which offers a holistic approach to implementing organizational change with emphasis on developing transferable skills that anyone can learn.

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.

Are the rich getting too much richer, and is there a limit to how much the poor will take?

That's the question that will drive the conversation when Mark O'Brien, Jolanta Pomiotlo, and Kirsten Yurich join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

According to a recent report, median pay packages for CEOs rose to $16.3 million through 2023, up 12.6%. Meanwhile, wages and benefits netted by private-sector workers rose 4.1%. At half the companies in this year’s survey, it would take the worker at the middle of the company’s pay scale almost 200 years to make what their CEO did.

According to some metrics, the average CEO is earning 600 times more than the average employee. Back in the 60s, the ratio was about 50 to 1.

Defenders of the steadily rising pay gap claim it is simple capitalism. CEOs responsible for company earnings are more in demand, therefore they command higher salaries. Others claim it is a symptom of crony capitalism: CEO board members vote one another higher salaries expecting reciprocity from their peers.

Whatever the true reason, the disparity strikes many non-CEOs as patently unfair. They don’t expect the same salaries, but they might reasonably expect a proportionate rate of increase. The resulting resentment likely affects employee satisfaction and, consequently, productivity; and it also erodes trust and confidence in the system, potentially contributing to systemic instability.

Is this a problem that needs to be addressed? If so, can it be addressed? If we rely on the government to enforce antitrust laws to guarantee fair practices, should the same apply with respect to salaries… or is there an intrinsic difference? How effective or consistent is government in ensuring an even playing field, and is there any alternative solution?

Meet this week’s panelists:

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.

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

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

Are we neglecting old relationships in hope of profiting from new ones?

That's the question that drives the discussion when Jennifer H. Elder, CSP, CPA, Jim Ristuccia, and Jon Strickler join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

Recently, I had enough of Charter Communications. My monthly fees kept going up, service got worse, and AT&T came around with faster service and a low rate locked in for 10 years. I signed up, then called Charter to cancel.

Immediately, they offered to upgrade my service, and slash my monthly fees. When I demurred, they offered me discounted cell phone service and their firstborn child. Okay, I made up that last part.

A few weeks later, I called the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to cancel my mother’s subscription after the price went up to $175/ month. Same story: Please stay and we’ll cut your fees by over 50%.

The service industry is famous for offering special deals to attract new customers. But what about their old customers? Shouldn’t loyalty count for something? And don’t these special offers indicate that customers are paying more than they should be?

Aren’t we better off living in a world where we cultivate loyalty rather than trying to seduce strangers to abandon long-standing relationships? Is this really the best way to do business, or would businesses do better in the long run working harder to retain the customers they have? And even if it is best for the bottom line, what is the social cost?

Meet this week’s panelists:

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

Jim Ristuccia is CEO Peer Advisory Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc., facilitating meaningful and impactful conversations to help leaders become the best version of themselves and grow their organizations.

Jon Strickler is Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc. He is a West Point graduate and business consultant with operational experience at more than 40 companies across four continents, as well as a national champion mountain biker.

At what cost can we expect others to take responsibility for our own well being?

That's the question that the ethics panel takes up when Giovanni Gallo, Nick Gallo, and Diane Helbig join me to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

A woman posted online how she likes to bake more than she likes to eat. Although she typically shares her culinary creations with friends and family, on one occasion she asked and received permission to leave her leftovers in the common area of her apartment building with a note that anyone who wanted could help themselves.

Over time, this developed into an informal tradition. Occasionally, other tenants put out their treats as well.

And then it stopped. One day a neighbor knocked on the door and accused the baker of poisoning her son after she had to take the boy to the emergency room for an allergy attack because he ate a peanut butter brownie.

The baker agreed to help pay for the hospital trip and stopped putting out her baked goods. When one neighbor asked why she had stopped, the baker recounted the story without mentioning the name of the mother who had complained.

Subsequently , the mother returned. It seemed that the neighbors were upset with the mother and blamed her for stopping the availability of baked goods. She accused the baker of intentionally defaming her and said she would lodge a complaint with the landlord.

Was the baker wrong for putting out the baked goods in the first place, or for sharing the story with a neighbor who was able to figure out which other party was involved? In general, how far does a community have to go to accommodate individual needs rather than expecting individuals to assume a higher level of responsibility for themselves and their families?

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.

Giovanni Gallo is an ethics enthusiast, compliance culturist, CTO and Co-CEO at Ethico, empowering leaders who care to manage risk, improve communication, reinforce culture, and establish ethical work environments.

Nick Gallo, aka the Ethics Evangelist and Captain Culture, is creator and host of The Ethics Experts podcast. He is Chief Servant and Co-CEO of Ethico, as well as brother of Giovanni Gallo.

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