The ethics of snow days

02.08.10 By Lauren

Washington, D.C. and its suburbs were buried over the weekend in more than two feet of snow. That may not be a lot by Midwestern standards, but the capitol region rarely sees much of the white stuff and our local governments aren’t equipped to deal with it. Schools were shut tight, the federal government closed early on Friday and stayed closed today and, despite the best efforts of highway treatment crews, even the busiest roads are still largely covered with an inch or more of tightly-packed ice.

Personal circumstances forced me onto the roads today, and the situation is downright scary. Folks who live here come from all over the world, and only a small percentage of them know how to drive on snow. People tend to come here in pursuit of power, so self-importance and impatience are common local personality traits. And cabin fever has clearly set in. Put those facts together and the roads are a death trap today, loaded with egotistical lunatics who think they can drive just as aggressively as they would in better weather and who are absolutely convinced that, by God, nothing should keep them from getting wherever it is that they think they absolutely have to be right this minute.

So, what about tomorrow?

Every day that the federal government is closed costs American taxpayers about $100 million in lost productivity. (And you thought government employees were lazy.) Shutting down has a real impact on federal workers and the citizens they serve; it’s fun to be home for the day, but don’t we all still want to get our mail on time? And then there are all of the restaurants, dry cleaners and other small businesses that lose money if federal workers aren’t out, about and buying their services. On the other hand, if it’s downright dangerous to drive, is it worth putting people’s lives in jeopardy to save money? Sometimes the government shifts the burden onto its employees, opening on time but allowing them to take unscheduled leave. That may be politically expedient, but it’s tough on individual workers who then face the unenviable choice of risking their lives on the road or using their limited leave. This storm was big and bad enough that local governments declared a state of emergency before the snow even started to fall. Isn’t the government better-equipped to deal with unanticipated natural disasters than individuals are? It’s an ethical dilemma - people or money first? - that the government will have to address, and just a few hours from now.

Oh, and there’s another foot of snow in Tuesday night’s forecast …

Topics: Business Ethics, Social Ethics, ethics | No Comments »

Hot-headed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been making headlines again. According to news reports, Emanuel lost his cool at an August meeting of White House aides and liberal groups, dismissing as “f—ing retarded” some attendees’ idea of airing ads attacking conservative Democrats who opposed the President’s health care overhaul proposal. Five months later, Emanuel’s remark was reported in The Wall Street Journal, drawing a firestorm of criticism from disability advocates. Emanuel ended up having to make multiple apologies, first to Special Olympics Chairman Timothy Shriver, then to a group of disability advocates at a follow-up meeting because Shriver said he couldn’t accept Emanuel’s apology on behalf of all of those who might have been offended. Emanuel has also promised to sign an online pledge to make the offensive term “retarded” obsolete, and to work toward removing it from federal law.

Good on ya, Rahm. But your critics are on the wrong track.

Don’t get me wrong. I think Emanuel’s comment was obnoxious, offensive, and all too true to the bad-boy reputation that limits his effectiveness in Washington. Emanuel definitely owed an apology to the browbeaten people in the meeting whose ideas he so rudely dismissed. But disability advocates should be demanding apologies from the meeting attendees who leaked the story to The Wall Street Journal months after Emanuel mouthed off. Those are the people who took a private conversation and made it public - and painful - to the disabled. That they may have done so in an effort to further their own political agenda makes their calculated indiscretion even worse.

President Obama made an eloquent call for more civility in Washington yesterday, and he was absolutely right. This country is facing a tidal wave of problems that won’t get solved as long as people are more interested in counting political coup than in working together. Emanuel desperately needs to take a lesson from his boss and learn to be more civil, both publicly and in private strategy meetings. But he’s still just a fallible human being who is going to speak inartfully from time to time, and so is every other public servant in Washington. It’s time for people who want to make a positive contribution to the legislative process to stop playing “gotcha” games and turning unfortunate private conversations into public political capital.

Topics: Apologies, Personal Ethics, Social Ethics, ethics | No Comments »

Is there anyone on the planet who doesn’t know that the already impoverished nation of Haiti has been reduced to a mountain of rubble by an earthquake? The stories and pictures coming out of Haiti are absolutely heartbreaking. Hundreds of thousands have died, families have been separated, almost anything resembling a building has collapsed, and what little infrastructure there was has been so severely damaged that the wonderful aid workers who are trying desperately to help the wounded, homeless and hungry often can’t even get supplies to where they’re most needed.

So of course, scam artists have already set up phony online charities to swindle away relief donations from well-intended, unsuspecting donors. Worse, the risk that criminals will steal children for indentured servitude or worse is so great that the Haitian government has felt compelled to suspend international adoptions. It’s an understandable decision, but it means that hungry, homeless children are being forced to wait for love and attention that may never come.

Admittedly, this kind of criminality absolutely pounds on a couple of my hot buttons. The idea that helpless children are having to suffer because some people are so monstrously greedy that they can’t wait to prey on the desperate absolutely infuriates me. And I’m haunted by the fear that the media, obsessed with scandal, will convince the public that it’s too risky to donate to Haitian relief efforts because the money will just end up in the wrong hands.

So I’m asking anyone who reads this blog to put their worries aside and find a way to help. Many of the more responsible media outlets have published lists of reputable charities that can be trusted to put donations to positive use. Find one, and donate. And don’t think for one minute that, just because the crisis is past the first few days, everything is under control. Haiti has been levelled. Everything is needed, and will be needed for a long time to come.

I write a lot about business ethics and apologies. But ethics are, ultimately, about doing the right thing even when there are risks involved. And if the people of the world’s wealthiest nations don’t help Haiti now, how can we ever apologize later? Please help.

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

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of appearing on Rev. Doug Bursch’s “Live From Seattle” KGNW radio program. Rev. Bursch asked me to come on the show to address a sorry situation in the Washington State Legislature. Seems that one bad-tempered legislator chewed out the staff of her party’s caucus. Several of her colleagues publicly demanded that she apologize, the legislator in question got even nastier and more defensive, and the whole situation spiralled down into an ugly spectacle of politicians behaving badly.

That could never happen in Washington, D.C., right? Of course not …

Politicians tend to have trouble apologizing. Maybe it’s because they know that anything they say can and will be held against them in future campaigns. Or maybe they think that apologizing for their mistakes makes them look weak. Trouble is, once the voters know about their errors, delaying apologies only makes them look weak and stubborn to boot.

We’ve all been in situations where several people acted out and apologies are due all around. Unless someone is willing to go first, though, the apologies get delayed and the situation festers. In the Washington State situation, it would be a good idea for the legislator who started the whole mess by picking on defenseless staffers to behave like an adult by apologizing first. Then, everyone who thought they’d gain political mileage by piling on should follow suit. It would be a shame if the head of the caucus in question had to pull everyone into a room, sit them in a circle, and force them all to apologize at once on a count of three. The voters of Washington State deserve better.

Topics: Apologies, Social Ethics, ethics | 1 Comment »

Be a “Go-Giver”!

01.29.10 By Lauren

Continuing my Friday series on keeping your business out of court, I want to recommend a book that can positively transform your approach to sales - and reduce your litigation risk.

I’m a huge fan of The Go-Giver by Bob Burg and John David Mann, a wonderful little story about how giving is the best route to success. Recently, I was delighted to receive an advance copy of the soon-to-be-released book Go-Givers Sell More. No surprise, I love it, too. All too many how-to books on sales encourage sellers to strong-arm “prospects” into buying products or services they might not really want or need. Go-Givers Sell More takes a much more humane approach, demonstrating that giving great service and personal attention is both a gentler and more successful way to increase sales.

There’s an added benefit to the Go-Giver approach. Customers who come away from a business transaction feeling as though they’ve been bullied into a deal aren’t likely to think well of the seller. If something goes wrong with a product or service they’ve purchased, they’ll be much more inclined to get angry and sue sellers who pushed unwanted items down their throats. If, on the other hand, the salesperson followed the Go-Giver approach, the customer may be more likely to forgive the flaws and work with the selling company to find an out-of-court solution. Go-Givers Sell More wasn’t written specifically to help companies reduce their litigation risk, but following its tenets may well have that happy side-effect.

To read the Introduction and a free chapter of Go-Givers Sell More, visit http://www.gogiverssellmore.com/chapter.php.

Topics: Business Ethics | 1 Comment »

The attorneys at McDonald’s certainly seem to be of the “take no prisoners and damn the torpedoes” school of legal thought. The fast food giant has had Egg McMuffin all over its corporate face on two separate occasions this week. There was the employee in the Netherlands who successfully sued McDonald’s for firing her after she gave her colleague a slice of cheese on what would otherwise have been an unadorned burger. The Dutch court found that the dismissal was too severe a penalty for such a minor infraction, and awarded the employee the salary she would have received for the remaining five months of her contract (and court costs, which probably far exceeded the damage award).

Closer to home, McDonald’s is threatening to take Chicago teenager Lauren McClusky to court to prevent her from trademarking the name of her McFest benefit concert series, which has raised about $30,000 for Special Olympics Chicago to date. McDonald’s is within its legal rights; the company holds the copyright to a small army of McNames, including the prefix “Mc” itself. But that doesn’t mean McDonald’s is smart to take such an inflexible stance when dealing with a crusading young social activist. McClusky (one can only hope McDonald’s won’t try to make her change her name) has become a minor celebrity on the Internet, and WalletPop.com reports that AOL users across the nation are threatening McBoycott.

A lot of big companies go straight to battle stations when dealing with employees and customers on the theory that, if they settle one potential lawsuit, they’ll be inundated with others. That can be good legal strategy, but it’s deadly for customer relations. McDonald’s portrays itself as a warm-hearted, family-friendly company that cares about its customers and the community. And the company does a lot of good in other venues - the Ronald McDonald Houses offer a real service to families in need. Unfortunately, McDonald’s’ Legal Department doesn’t seem to have gotten the message that litigating too aggressively can destroy a company’s reputation in the court of public opinion. Maybe the lawyers at McDonald’s should all take a deep breath, calm down, and go out together for a Happy Meal.

Topics: Business Ethics, Lauren Recommends, Legal Ethics, Risk Management, Social Ethics, business communications, corporate responsibility, customer relations, ethics | No Comments »

The Supreme Court stunned the nation last week with its decision to allow corporations to exercise free speech rights by running election campaign ads. Suddenly, huge companies and unions with millions to spend will be able to innundate voters with a tidal wave of attack ads targeting candidates who oppose their interests. Less wealthy non-profits and individuals are rightly concerned that their voices will be drowned out altogether.

But maybe things aren’t quite as bleak as they seem.

This situation presents a singular opportunity for businesses, politicians and voters to step up and do a more ethical job of navigating the nation’s political processes. Yes, corporations could take this opening to promote candidates whose integrity is for sale, but they would do so at some risk. After all, a politician who can be bought once can be bought again and again, so there’s no guarantee that money spent to elect such a rogue would reap any lasting benefit. Besides, corruption always becomes public sooner or later, and a company that supported a slimy politician would take a blow to its own image with consumers. Politicians could choose to sell their votes to the highest bidder but, eventually, they’ll still have to answer to the voters in their districts. Corporate money might get them elected, but it won’t necessarily keep them in office. And voters could choose to be lazy and vote for the candidate with the most name recognition … or they could recognize that their votes are being purchased, tune out the slurs, and reject dishonest candidates who are clearly in the pockets of greedy special interests.

Like many people who follow the news, I’m deeply concerned about the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision. We’re stuck with it now, though, so it’s up to America’s voters to ensure that this brave new world of corporate campaigning doesn’t produce a bumper crop of mindless marionettes. It’s our government, folks. If we vote for the good guys no matter how much money the special interests spend on their opponents, corporate America may eventually take the hint.

Topics: Business Ethics, Corporate Governance, Social Ethics, business communications, corporate responsibility, ethics | No Comments »

Continuing my Friday series on keeping your business out of court, let’s discuss a mistake that many companies make: writing unreasonably strict internal rules, then failing to enforce them even-handedly.

Recently, I had an opportunity to contribute to an article in The Conference Board Review titled, “Workers Behaving Badly” that described a common problem. In an effort to look like they take ethics seriously, companies write lengthy codes of conduct for their employees, and teach classes on compliance once a year at most. Then, they enforce the rules unevenly. An administrative assistant gets fired for pilfering his kid’s school supplies from the supply room, but everyone in the company knows that the top salesperson submits her expense reports every month with hundreds of dollars of undocumented extra goodies and never suffers so much as a slap on the wrist.

Where’s the legal risk here? There are at least two. First, there’s the unhappy customer who uses the company’s code of ethics as “Exhibit A” in a breach of contract suit. (If a company adopts a policy, it effectively promises to comply with that policy when dealing with customers.) Second, uneven enforcement of company rules can lead to charges of illegal discrimination by employees who believe they received harsher discipline than other employees who were younger, or of a different race, gender, religion, or other legally-protected characteristic. Unless you can explain why Employee A got more lenient treatment than Employee B, you may end up spending an awful lot on legal fees.

Employees are human, and they’re going to slip up from time to time. If a code of ethics is too elaborate to use or sets an unachievable standard, you’re inviting violations. Write your rules to set reasonable standards of conduct for real people, and make sure you train your employees often enough that they understand where the bright lines are. Then, make sure you hold your superstars to the same standards as everyone else.

To read the Conference Board Review article, go to http://www.tcbreview.com/workers-behaving-badly.php.

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

The Ethics of “Avatar”

01.20.10 By Lauren

Recently, I had the pleasure of seeing James Cameron’s new blockbuster, “Avatar.” Cameron has given us the mythical planet Pandora, a confection of a world, sparkling with a million gorgeous colors and lit with magic from within. Of course, it’s also a source of a valuable mineral that covetous corporate executives and military madmen from the Earth just can’t wait to rape and pillage. Luckily for the exquisitely blue, indigenous people of Pandora, however, the invading Earthlings have also brought with them a former Marine, disabled in battle. The hero experiences an epic change of consciousness and turns on his corrupt keepers, helping the locals defend themselves from the combined marauding forces of violence and corporate greed.

But did he really have to do it by leading the generally peaceable native people in mortal combat? And from the back of the biggest dragon on the block, no less?

I sat through the seemingly endless battle sequences in “Avatar” cringing as the ethereal landscape of Pandora was blown to bits and wishing that, just once, the hero in one of these stories could find a way to protect innocence and beauty without presiding over a bloodbath. Courage, determination and endurance are all invaluable character traits, but they don’t have to be backed up with bullets. What if the hero had gotten word home about the damage Earthlings were inflicting on Pandora, and actually got help from a principled legislator, a watchdog reporter or a crusading attorney? (Oh, don’t be so cynical - it could happen.) What if the people of the Earth themselves had rallied against the harm being done to Pandora? Wouldn’t that have been more interesting and inspiring than another Hollywood gore fest?

So, why talk about a movie on a business ethics blog? Because Hollywood movies are big business and, more important, because I believe that artists of Cameron’s stature have a real responsibility to teach audiences, and especially children, about the consequences of hatred and greed. “Avatar” does that, but it fails to go the next step of teaching that meeting violence with violence is not a good way to solve problems. Cameron was creative enough to delight us with his vision of Pandora - surely, he could have found an entertaining and ethical way for his hero to prevail. Maybe next time, Cameron will take that critical step … or maybe we’ll just have to wait for Steven Spielberg to do it.

Topics: Business Ethics, Personal Ethics, Social Ethics, corporate responsibility, ethics | 2 Comments »

Apologize before you get fired!

01.19.10 By Lauren

As unemployment continues at uncomfortable levels, people are trying harder than ever to keep the jobs they have. We’re all human, though, and we all make mistakes. Indeed, the stress of struggling to appear perfect can make blunders even more likely. People who’ve messed up may be so afraid of losing their jobs that they try to cover up innocent mistakes. Once those mistakes are discovered, the attempted cover-up can make them look a lot less innocent.

So, if you make a mistake and get fired for it, can you get your job back with an apology? Maybe.

AOL recently asked me to help with an article titled, “Why You Should Apologize to an Ex-Employer.” I was happy to oblige. The article discusses the benefits of apologizing after termination and, of course, includes a quick summary of the six essential elements of an effective apology.

But here’s the thing: once an employer actually decides to fire you, wheels start in motion and it can be terribly difficult to put the train back in the station. A post-termination apology might get you a reference or help finding a new job, but it may not be enough to get back the job you’ve lost. Instead of apologizing after you’ve lost your job, admit to your mistakes when you make them and apologize right away. It’s usually a lot easier to keep your job in the first place than it is to get it back after you’ve lost it.

To read the AOL article, visit http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/01/15/apologize-to-an-employer/.

Topics: Apologies, Business Ethics, Lauren Recommends, business communications, ethics | No Comments »

« Previous Entries