One of the hallmarks of a profession is education in a specialized field and, with it, immersion in the language of the craft. Lawyers and doctors speak Latin, engineers, architects and scientists use complex technical terms, accountants and actuaries speak of mathematics, probabilities and statistics. Whatever your professional lingo, it may be “Greek” to the people you serve.

Professionals work hard to attain their status, and are justly proud of their ability to toss specialized terms around. But unless they translate those terms into common language their skilled advice may not be understood by the people who receive it. That creates the potential for all kinds of misunderstanding. Patients can consent to a particular operation without understanding the risks. Clients can authorize their lawyers to pursue strategies they never would have approved if they knew what they were getting. Investors can get burned because they didn’t understand the risks associated with a recommended purchase. Presented with a bad result, clients, patients and customers can turn a professional’s failure to explain risks in plain language into an expensive lawsuit.

It can be difficult to explain sophisticated concepts in simple terms, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. Summarize your observations and recommendations as simply as possible, and don’t hesitate to use diagrams, pictures and analogies; I know one cardiologist who’s very good at explaining heart problems in terms of water pumps. Develop informational materials for problems your clients frequently face, and have someone who isn’t in your profession read them for clarity. (If you have teen-aged children, recruit them for this task.) Encourage your client to ask questions, and continue to talk until you’re reasonably sure he understands you. Then, document your conversation in a note to the file so you can demonstrate later what you said to your client and when. Careful disclosure strengthens business relationships and minimizes understandings. It can also keep you out of court.

Topics: Business Ethics, Legal Ethics, Professional Ethics, Risk Management, business communications, customer relations, ethics | No Comments »

It can’t be easy to run Starbucks these days. Even before the recession hit, the wildly popular coffee chain had become the poster child for extravangant self-indulgence. All too often, if personal finance gurus wanted to demonstrate how little sacrifices add up to big savings they’d point an accusing finger at the decidedly discretionary cost of a daily stop at Starbucks.

Now, the coffee chain is in the middle of a heated battle between gun control advocates and the “open carry” movement, gun owners who regularly carry unconcealed firearms in public. Forty-three states currently allow open carry, some requiring permits, some not. Under pressure from both sides, Starbucks and other chains have decided to permit their customers to carry guns onto their premises in states that allow them to do so.

There’s a superficial logic to Starbucks’ decision. After all, if state legislatures don’t object to open carry, who are merchants to disagree? And yes, if Starbucks were to ban guns on their premises, would-be Lone Rangers would probably buy their coffee somewhere else. But would that be such a bad thing?

There are still restaurants in this country that won’t serve folks in shorts and flipflops. Yes, it’s snooty and it probably drives some customers away. But their managers have recognized that barring the underdressed creates a more pleasurable experience for formally-clad patrons, and have made the decision to cater to class instead of scrambling for every last nickel.

Sometimes, it’s nice to dine in a civilized environment. It’s even nicer to stop for a cup of coffee without having to worry about being shot, deliberately or otherwise. So Starbucks, show a little backbone. Serve your triple-mocha-grande-lattes to people in ragged tee shirts and bare feet if you like. But please, make them check their weapons at the door.

Topics: Business Ethics, Social Ethics, corporate responsibility, customer relations, ethics | No Comments »

The death of Orlando SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau last week has raised a firestorm of debate about whether it’s right to train big predators to entertain the public. Ms. Brancheau was killed by a 22-foot male orca named Tilikum. No one really knows what caused Tilikum to grab Ms. Brancheau by the hair and pull her underwater. But her death raises some pretty signficant ethical issues, as does the question of what will become of Tilikum now.

In the interests of full disclosure, let me say that I was one of the people who contributed to build the tank that housed Keiko, the orca from “Free Willy,” as a first step toward his eventual return to the wild. Nobody cheered harder for Keiko’s release, and nobody was more disappointed when he ultimately proved to be too tame to ever really transition back to life in the sea. (Keiko, who apparently loved people, was still playing with fishing boats when he eventually died of natural causes.) Nobody enjoys dolphin and whale shows at SeaWorld more, either. Watching children cheer from their parents’ laps, I always agreed with the experts who argue that big-predator shows perform an essential service, teaching children to love the animals so that, as adults, they’ll be a bit more inclined to protect them.

Now, I’m not so sure.

Anheuser-Busch has invested a lot of money in its SeaWorld parks and, when there’s a big investment involved, values can get a little skewed. The orca shows were briefly shut down, but it was inevitable that they would resume - big, empty tanks are bad for business. Can the shows operate safely, both for the trainers and the animals? If not, it will be bad not only for SeaWorld and its trainers, but for orcas. People have an ugly tendency to destroy any species that they consider dangerous. There are no recorded incidents of orcas killing people in the wild, but that fact may get lost if an orca is ever involved in another widely-publicized amusement park accident.

And what will SeaWorld do with Tilikum, a bull orca who weighs nearly six tons and who is now associated with three human deaths? Experts suggest that isolating him from the other orcas at the park could cause him to suffer real psychological harm, which might make him even more dangerous. He’s too valuable to euthanize - he’s sired over a dozen calfs for the company. Yet, allowing him to perform, especially if it would involve putting him in the tank with another trainer, seems like a crazy risk to take. And if Keiko couldn’t transition back to the wild, is there any reason to think Tilikum would do any better?

It’s not clear to me what the executives at SeaWorld should do. I only hope that, as they discuss Tilikum’s fate and the future of their orca shows, they’ll consider what’s right and humane, not just what’s profitable.

Topics: Business Ethics, Risk Management, corporate responsibility, customer relations, ethics | 2 Comments »

Continuing my Friday series on keeping your business out of court, let’s discuss a mistake that even the biggest companies make: letting problems fester and grow until they do serious damage. For today’s example, we need look no further than Toyota Motor Co.

Toyota’s woes have been well-publicized, and investigations continue into what and when the company knew about the unintended acceleration problems plaguing some of its vehicles. Whether Toyota’s cars have been unexpectedly speeding up because of mechanical or electrical problems is not yet clear. What is clear, however, is that Toyota apparently knew it had safety problems for years, but did little or nothing to address them until public outcry reached ridiculous decibel levels. Now, Toyota is facing three major, expensive recalls, state and federal investigations, an avalanche of criticism, and damage to its reputation that it may not survive.

This mess might have been avoided if Toyota had taken customer complaints seriously and acted on them years ago. Instead, the company apparently thought that its cars were too good to fail, blaming the inepitude of the drivers who purchased them. That arrogant inaction gave Toyota’s problems a decade to escalate into a major crisis.

Timely intervention when the situation was more manageable could have saved Toyota a world of problems - and it could save your business, too. Jump on problems before they have a chance to grow.

Topics: Business Ethics, Risk Management, business communications, customer relations, ethics | No Comments »

Today’s Congressional hearings about Toyota’s safety problems were deeply disappointing to those of us who hoped that the company would put its ongoing troubles to rest. Toyota’s President, Akio Toyoda, appeared in person to apologize to American consumers for the quality control issues that have dogged his company. It was a defining moment for Toyota - but not in a positive way.

My regular readers know that I think effective apologies can resolve almost anything. But let’s be clear - before an apology can be made, everyone involved has to understand what went wrong in the first place. That just isn’t true here. Even after hours of testimony and brutal questioning from frustrated legislators, it’s still not clear what caused the acceleration problems that allegedly killed 34 people, or whether the fix Toyota proposes will successfully solve them.

When things go wrong, it’s important for companies to admit to error and apologize. Toyoda said his company is sorry and made general promises to do better going forward. But anxious American consumers still don’t know if the cars they bought from Toyota are safe, and it appears that Toyota isn’t going to tell them any time soon. Toyota’s U.S. head, Jim Lentz, said that Toyota is working on greater transparency, which suggests that its internal communications are probably clear as mud right now. Toyota executives say that they know they need to communicate better - now would be a really good time to start.

Enough with the elegantly-phrased generalities, Mr. Toyoda - just give us a dose of unvarnished truth. Your employees deserve better, and so do your customers.

Topics: Apologies, Business Ethics, business communications, customer relations, ethics | 3 Comments »

It’s been an interesting few days, as I’ve found myself discussing Tiger Woods’ apology with interviewers from across the U.S., Canada and Europe. More than a few people have criticized the apology as being too “scripted” or dissed Woods’ delivery as too “wooden.” A handful of angry critics have refused to accept the apology at all, arguing that Woods should never be forgiven, period.

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t like what Woods did any better than anyone else does. But I think that the people who criticized his delivery are missing the point. Yes, he had a script in front of him, and he clung to it with all his might. But just because an apology is scripted doesn’t necessarily make it insincere. This was probably the single most important and difficult statement of Tiger Woods’ life. The fact that he thought it was especially important to get it just right - and therefore used a script - may be proof of his sincere desire to apologize appropriately.

And as for those who can never forgive him, well, that’s their choice. But remember, there are governments out there that have gleefully committed genocide, companies that have deliberately hidden life-threatening safety problems with their products in order to wring the last possible dollar out of their unsuspecting customers, at least one former investment guru who swindled millions from little old ladies and charitable foundations, politicians who have sold their votes and the well-being of their constituents to the highest bidder … and the list goes on. What Tiger Woods did was shameful, but he’s hardly alone. Judge him if you like, but at least judge him fairly.

Topics: Apologies, Business Ethics, Legal Ethics, Personal Ethics, Social Ethics, ethics | 2 Comments »

Tiger Woods did a lot of things right when he finally delivered his much-anticipated apology. He said a straightforward “I’m sorry” to his family, his fans, the children who idolize him, his PGA peers and his sponsors. He took responsibility for his actions, expressed appreciation to everyone who has supported him in the past, and described what he’ll do in the future to make amends and do better next time.

So, why doesn’t his apology get an A+?

It’s not because of his plea for privacy or his insistence that the details of his past transgressions be kept private between him and his wife. Nor do I fault him for reading from a script or for his occasionally wooden delivery. Tiger Woods is an athlete, not an actor - it’s not fair to expect him to speak in public with the same grace he brings to golf.

What took a little gloss off Woods’ apology, in my view, was the angry swipe he took at the media. He could have made the same requests for privacy without the resentful tone and been just as effective. Many golf writers had already boycotted the carefully-staged event because they objected to Woods’ refusal to open the event to the press or to take questions. Woods may just have added insult to injury for the very people who made him look good in the first place.

Aplogizing for his past actions has to have been very difficult for Woods, who seems to be a proud and intensely private man. It’s not surprising that he responded with a little human anger. I can forgive him for that … but will the media? Only time will tell.

Topics: Apologies, Professional Ethics, business communications, ethics | 1 Comment »

Tiger Woods has announced that he’ll make a public statement tomorrow apologizing for the actions that led to his spectacular fall from grace a few months ago. The event will be closely controlled, with only a few “friends, colleagues and close associates” attending in person and no questions from the media permitted. A handful of reporters will be allowed in the room - others must watch from a hotel ballroom more than a mile away.

This may be the one of the most publicized apologies in history. But will it be effective?

Much as I wish I could predict success for Woods, who has undoubtedly suffered greatly as his reputation has been dragged through miles of mud, he’s chosen a risky strategy. By limiting access and refusing to answer questions, the embattled golfer may create the appearance that he thinks he’s above all criticism. If so, it will be a serious mistake. American fans expect superstar athletes to maintain at least a scrap of humility and to take public humiliation in stride when they get caught crossing ethical lines. The least hint of arrogance destroys the effectiveness of a public apology.

And then there’s the timing. Golf gurus are speculating that Woods is apologizing tomorrow so that he can get back in the game by next month. If he’d done a better job of apologizing when the story first broke his fans might be ready to welcome his return. Unfortunately, however, Woods waited far too long to issue this public statement, and an immediate comeback may create the impression that he’s only apologizing, belatedly and insincerely, so he can start playing golf again.

Remember, Tiger, sincerity is key. Good luck tomorrow - I’m afraid you’re going to need it.

P.S.: I’ll be talking about Tiger Woods’ apology on The CBS Evening News tonight - please tune in!

Topics: Apologies, Personal Ethics, Professional Ethics, business communications, ethics | No Comments »

Seems as though almost everyone who writes about business has a theory about what landed Toyota in its current fix. Some pundits blame a failure of leadership in Toyota’s management, others claim that Toyota failed to stay true to its brand, and still others tag Toyota with the arrogance that comes from being a superstar for too long. They probably all have a point, but I think Toyota’s woes may be most attributable to one simple failing:

Toyota appears to have forgotten that product safety has to come first.

Every one of the quality control issues that led Toyota to issue three separate recalls is directly related to safety - they all have to do with how reliably Toyota cars accelerate and brake. Above all else, consumers want to be sure that the cars they buy are safe to drive. Fuel efficiency, styling and price are important too, but their importance vanishes the instant that a concern about product safety rears its ugly head. Once an automaker knows it has sold potentially unsafe cars to the public, it has to work at warp speed to address the situation if it wants to maintain customer trust.

And that, I believe, is where Toyota went wrong. As soon as the automaker knew that some of its cars were potentially unsafe, it should have recalled and fixed them. However, although it reportedly may have known for days, weeks or even longer that there were safety concerns with some of its cars, Toyota apparently dragged its feet on a recall. That sent a clear but unfortunate message that Toyota was more concerned about its own bottom line than the health and safety of its customers. And once that message got out, Toyota’s goose was cooked.

Can Toyota recover? Probably - but it’ll take a whole lot of apologies and solid proof that the company takes safety seriously to put things right again.

Topics: Apologies, Business Ethics, business communications, corporate responsibility, customer relations, ethics | 1 Comment »