Grappling with the Gray

Is doing something half-right better than not doing it at all?
Or can selectively excluding good not only negate but overpower the benefit of what's included?

That's the dilemma the ethics panel takes up when Christopher Bauer, Catherine Fitzgerald, and Scott Mason join me to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

The following is taken from the About page on the Hostage Aid Worldwide website:

“Hostage Aid is a non-profit NGO established by a group of former hostages from around the world, families of hostages and subject matter experts, all of whom, based on their different personal experiences as well as suffering, have banded together to fight for the release of hostages globally while aiming to prevent this inhumane act of hostage taking from occurring against other innocent people.”

Bravo!  Who could argue with that?  What follows next is from the same organization’s Global Hostage Report 2023:

“Year 2023 was the most drastically eventful year for hostages and unlawfully detained persons globally since 1979, the most significant event being the Hamas attack on Israel. On October 7, Hamas militants and other Palestinian militant factions abducted around 125 foreigners and dual nationals from more than 20 different countries, to the Gaza Strip.”

You may remember that the number of hostages taken by Hamas was over 240.  So how did Hostage Aid arrive at their count of 125?  By excluding Israeli captives, most of whom were civilians, many of whom were women, children, and the elderly.

Even if the leaders of Hostage Aid agree with South Africa’s assertion that the Hamas attack of October 7 was justified as an act of resistance, how are we to explain the thinking that allows an organization devoted to “to providing humanitarian relief and support to current and former hostages” to ignore the largest group of hostages currently being held against their will? 

https://hostageaid.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Hostage-Aid-Global-Hostage-Report-2023-January-16-Update.pdf

Meet this week’s panelists:

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

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

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.

Does the appearance of chaos promote chaos?

That's the question the ethics panel takes up this episode of Grappling with the Gray.
Here is our topic:

The recent disappearance of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin from the White House chain of command sent tremors through Washington and the country.

On January 2, shortly after returning home from an apparently successful procedure, the secretary experienced unexpected pain and returned to the hospital.

Pentagon officials were informed the secretary has been hospitalized, and Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks, on vacation in Puerto Rico, was informed she would be assuming additional duties but was not informed of the secretary’s hospitalization.

Throughout this period, the National Security Council, Defense Department and State Department were formulating a response to a military threat from Houthi rebels in the Red Sea, which culminated in a retaliatory strike on Baghdad on January 4, the same day President Biden was informed that Secretary Austin was back in the hospital.

According to some experts, there was never a significant breakdown in the chain of command. Former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta agrees, but adds that there is a need for a more formally defined policy to ensure clear communication. According to Mr. Panetta, the administration “dodged a bullet.”

Even if we assume no harm, no foul, does the appearance of disorganization create a sense of insecurity among the American people, embolden our enemies, and create the potential for self-fulfilling prophecy? Even when there are no immediate consequences, don’t avoidable blunders project a lack of competence that can accelerate the erosion of standards? Or are occasional errors inevitable and excusable, as long as they serve to shore up lapses in procedural policy?

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.

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.

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.

Is there ever such a thing as too much transparency, too much disclosure, or too much open information?

That's the subject the ethics panel takes up when Sam Ardery and Jennifer Elder join me to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our ethics challenge:

As of January 1, a new Florida law requires city officials to report their assets, liabilities, sources of income and net worth, the same disclosures previously required of state legislators, county commissioners, school board members, sheriffs, and other constitutional officers.

In response, dozens of city officials have resigned, citing reasons ranging from health concerns to opposing the invasion of their privacy.

The law, however, is an application of the Sunshine Amendment, which begins by stating the principle that ‘A public office is a public trust.’

We can probably all agree that transparency is a good thing, but is there a line between how much disclosure is enough and how much is too much?

Presidential administrations have been accused of weaponizing the IRS to harass political opponents with trivial or fabricated offenses by exploiting public information. Moreover, does demanding disclosure to ensure trust communicate a mixed message that officials aren’t trustworthy?

Aren’t public figures entitled to some measure of privacy in their personal lives? A recent NY Times op ed met with widespread criticism for speculating about Taylor Swift’s sexuality. We’ve come to take it for granted that outrageous treatment in the tabloids is the price of fame, but is that fair to celebrities, and is it healthy for society?

Of course we want public officials to be accountable for their financial and professional conduct. But if they feel their privacy is being unduly invaded, will that not discourage otherwise viable candidates from electing to serve the common good?

How do we gauge the point at which notoriety or public service carries an implicit acceptance of diminished personal privacy?

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.

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

#ethics 

#politics 

#culture 

#leadership 

#accountability 

#grappling

🥷You've learned about the horrors of Auschwitz.
🥷You've read about the atrocities of October 7.
🥷You've watched the recent rise of Anti-Semitism in the US and around the world.

You want to do something. But what can you do?
After all you're just one person.
And maybe you're not even Jewish.

That's why you don't want to miss my conversation with 🟦 Melissa Hughes, Ph.D.

Melissa is my hero. She's a non-Jew who has been fighting a one-woman war against anti-Semitism. And she stepped onto the field of battle months before October 7 was a date to remember.

Melissa is an inspiration to all of us who think we can't make a difference. And she tells a cautionary tale about how doing the right thing often carries unexpected consequences.

But the consequences are much worse when we wait for someone else to stand up and speak out.

Please join us for a riveting session not only Grappling but also Wrestling with the Gray.

Is saying "I'm sorry" sometimes not enough?
Should we say we're sorry when we're not?
What if we're not sorry when we should be?

These are some of the questions the ethics panel will take up this Wednesday at 5:00 pm ET when Mark Brown, CSP, Deb Coviello, and Kimberly Davis join me to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic?

Days after a highly charged appearance before a Congressional hearing, University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill resigned under pressure after she refused to condemn anti-Semitism and genocidal slogans as violations of her school’s rules of conduct, despite offering a public apology.

Curiously, the presidents of Harvard and MIT, who gave virtually identical testimony at the same hearing, have received overwhelming support from their boards and faculty. Meanwhile, wealthy alumni are withdrawing their support in droves.

It’s hard to imagine that the three presidents did not confer with one another prior to the hearing, since they all gave the same answers, almost verbatim. For President Magill, at least, that seems to have been inadequate preparation. How might she have better prepared herself for the hearing that went so awry?

And what are we to make of the radically divergent reactions among three similar university communities? Do the responses of MIT and Harvard appear to be really about core principles or more about territorial autonomy and political posturing?

In general, how should leaders respond when their comments or behavior creates unexpected controversy? When and how can leaders recover from mistakes and when are they fatal to future effective leadership?

Meet this week’s panelists:

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

Deb Coviello The Drop In CEO™ 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.

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.

#ethics 

#integrity 

#leadership 

#education 

#grappling

Are some topic too hot to discuss? Not when we're Grappling with the Gray, they're not.

This is the challenge the ethics panel takes up when Jennifer Elder, Mark O'Brien, and Stewart Wiggins join me to confront the clash between professional responsibility and personal conviction.

Here is our topic:

In the infamous 1857 Dred Scott case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a slave could not sue for freedom because slaves were not citizens but essentially property. Under the law, this was an entirely defensible position. 

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney personally opposed slavery; he even freed slaves he himself inherited. But he also believed the law was clear and that, as a justice of the court, he had a legal and moral obligation to interpret the law as it was written, regardless of whether he agreed with it or not.

Legal historians have largely cast the decision as villainous. But is it not a recipe for anarchy when government officers act according to their conscience rather than according to the law?

In 2015, a Kentucky county clerk refused to issue a same sex marriage license claiming that it violated her religious values. In 2017, acting Attorney General Sally Yates refused to defend an executive order imposing a temporary ban on refugees from countries connected with terrorist activity. Some legal authorities argued that Ms. Yates did not provide adequate justification for her refusal, failing to demonstrate or even claim that the order was unconstitutional. 

Not surprisingly, the same conservatives who applauded the Kentucky clerk for her act of conscience castigated Ms. Yates for hers; and the same liberals who cheered on Ms. Yates were outraged by the Kentucky clerk’s contempt for the law.

And for years, metropolitan mayors around the country have established sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws.

We acknowledge the legitimacy of exempting conscientious objectors from fighting in war. Are public servants entitled to the same consideration? If so, how do we ensure that acting according to conscience does not contribute to a total breakdown of the rule of law?

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.

🟦 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.

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

#ethics #culture #values #accounability #justice #grappling #yonasongoldson #rabbigoldson #therabbi #grapplingwiththegray

🥷How to we resolve the tension between outcome and intention?
🥷How much does it mean to mean well if what we mean never materializes?
🥷How much is enough if we know we can't do it all?

These are some of the questions the ethics panel will address when Rashmi Airan, Nick Gallo, and Laura Elizabeth Gray join me to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our scenario:

You schedule a business lunch with a colleague or prospect. After five minutes of talking business, the conversation drifts into personal chatting and schmoozing. You have a nice time but never get back to business.

Since you intended this to be a business meeting and did discuss some business, is there anything wrong with submitting the cost of lunch as a business expense? Would it make a difference if you spent half the time on business, or 75%, or 99%?

What about the ethics of doing business with companies that outsource to countries without child labor laws or guilty of human rights violations? What about buying products that aren’t ethically sourced? 

If we demand 100% ethics from others, are we not effectively cutting ourselves off from doing business? How do we accommodate the need for realistic standards in choosing business partners without compromising our own ethical integrity?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Rashmi Airan is a keynote speaker and consultant determined to create organizational cultures focused on integrity, authenticity, and accountability.

Nick Gallo, aka the Ethics Evangelist, is CEO of Compliance Line, as well as creator and host of The Ethics Experts podcast.

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

hashtag

#ethics 

hashtag

#culture 

hashtag

#accountability 

hashtag

#mindset 

hashtag

#grappling

When protestors respond to reasonable questions about their causes with, "Why does it matter?" isn't it long past time that we addressed the failings of our education system?

Tune in this Wednesday here on LinkedIn Live at 5:00 pm ET when Diane Helbig, Brian Kelly, and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel for another episode of Grappling with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

Thanksgiving has become a complicated holiday: many seem to feel that either we whitewash offenses against Indigenous peoples or scrap Thanksgiving altogether.

But isn’t it a sign of maturity to express appreciation for the good while also acknowledging and taking responsibility for the bad? Isn’t it the job of education to teach young people the skills to navigate the complexities of history and moral dilemmas?

The recent viral spread of Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America” has driven home what many critics of education have railed against for years. Carefully selected excerpts disseminated on TikTok have filled an information vacuum among young people who have been denied basic knowledge and critical reasoning skills to understand the context and significance of history’s worst terror attack against the United States.

Another popular video showed a young man soliciting signatures on a college campus to support the Hamas charter. Students eagerly agreed to sign. Thankfully, when they were told what the charter contained, they quickly recanted their support. But why did they not first ask to read what they were signing?

One young woman chanting from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, was asked: “Which river?” Her reply: “What difference does it make?”

It is encouraging how many contributors have withdrawn their financial support after the recent wave of anti-Semitic violence on many college campuses. But aside from being outraged, what practical steps can we take to address the culture of ignorance and superficiality that is spreading through our society?

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.

Brian Kelly is the CEO and Founder at Human Factors Consulting, LLC. He is an optimistic rebel, committed to humanizing leadership, relationships and workplaces by creating the conditions for people to thrive so your business can, too.

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

hashtag

#ethics 

hashtag

#culture 

hashtag

#education 

🥷Should we draw a line between business practices and political activism?
🥷Should we keep our personal views out of the boardroom and off the billboards?
🥷Is it proper to use a business platform to support a social agenda that is not universally held?

Tune into LinkedIn Live when the ethics panel convenes at a special time for a special transatlantic episode Grappling with the Gray.

On recent panels, we’ve discussed objective reporting vs. editorial activism in the newsroom and freedom of speech vs. irresponsible rhetoric on college campuses.

There’s a similar tension facing companies when they wade into the social and political arena. A variety of companies have come under fire for their choice of spokespeople, their support of public or international policy, and their partnership with celebrities who may hold controversial or polarizing views.

Without getting into the weeds about specific controversies, what is there to say about businesses taking positions on hot-button issues?

On the one hand, don’t those with power and influence have a responsibility to advocate for equality and justice? On the other hand, since so many issues are complex, nuanced, and highly emotional, should businesses just mind their own business and leave social change to others?

As a consumer, is it practical, realistic, or even proper to expect businesses to remain neutral on social issues? Since we can’t agree on everything, at what point should I seriously consider boycotting businesses because of their political or social stance, even when I’m inconveniencing myself by doing so?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Pascal Derrien is CEO of Migraine Ireland, a registered charity dedicated to empowering migraineurs by providing innovative services through education, information and outreach programs.

🟦 Carolyn Lebanowski Strategic Leadership Partner with The Institute for Leadership and LifeLong Learning International, as well as a columnist at BIZCATALYST 360.

Toni McLelland MSc FRSA 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.

Should we look to the stars to solve our problems, or do we already have enough to deal with here on earth?


The ethics of space pioneering is the subject of my conversation with NASA program director Michael Ciannilli.


As children, virtually all of us are enamored with the idea of space flight. As we get older, however, we may lose our youthful enthusiasm as we contemplate the ethical questions space exploration raises.


Should we be spending millions of dollars collecting sand on Mars when we have so many problems here on earth? Should we be risking astronauts’ lives on glamorous missions, and now civilian lives as space tourism becomes more popular?


What about the dangers of space debris, of too many low earth orbit satellites, of infecting other planets with microorganisms? What about commercialization of space activities, the militarization of space, and the influence of partisan politics on the decision guiding our space programs?


Obviously, we don’t have time to tackle all these issues. But what systems are in place to address the ethics of space travel? And what are some fundamental values, principles, and mindsets that govern the decision-making of space exploration?


Meet this week's very special guest:


Michael Ciannilli is the Apollo, Challenger, Columbia Lessons Learned Program Manager at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, where he develops innovative events, media productions, and activities to powerfully enshrine the lessons of failure to influence future success. Prior to this role, Mike served as Test Project Engineer and systems engineer for the Space Shuttle Program. In 2003, he spent weeks searching in a helicopter over the skies of Texas finding and bringing home Columbia and her crew.

#ethics #spaceexploration #nasa #perspective #grappling