The Week in Ethics: Pepsi’s Advertising Disconnect From Social Responsibility

Update: May 4, 2013: Pepsi pulled the ad, but a segment of the ad is still available to view as of today here 

Having a woman CEO hasn’t sensitized those at Pepsi making advertising decisions based on an ad pulled this week showing a hysterical blond, battered, white woman intimidated by a policeman who is drinking a Mountain Dew demanding that she pick her batterer out of a line up of African-American men and a goat.

The ad, part of a series, developed by Tyler, The Creator, an African-American rapper, is a reminder that in the search for hip the lens of celebrity has its own focus.

Does Pepsi’s pulse on America really think the new edgy is taking half-a-dozen demeaning stereotypes, throwing them at the wall and not caring what sticks as long as you notice the can of soda?

The ad blunder for Mountain Dew is a reminder to companies that the definition of corporate social responsibility goes beyond the dollars they give to improve causes important to them. If they don’t link their influence in the world to how they sell products, their corporate responsibility becomes just veneer.

When every nine seconds in the U.S. a woman is beaten or assaulted  (the leading cause of injury to women), when a Georgia High School just had its first-ever integrated prom, when a Chicago Police Department is criticized for racial stereotyping and ”accidental racist” is too common……when rape in India — a four-year-old girl sexually assaulted died this week — continues to underscore attitudes toward women and girls — pandering to demeaning stereotypes in attempts at hip and wannabe amusing advertising betrays corporate responsibility.

USA Today illustrates recent advertising missteps that resulted in bad press and pulled ads: parodies of suicide (Hyundai zero emission cars) and depressed women (McDonald’s regional Big Mac ad) and Ford’s depiction of sexily-dressed women bound and gagged in the back of a Figo compact car — all tributes to bad judgment.

Hip is seductive– it crowns itself its own cool, evaporates in backlash and leaves corporate responsibility without much to say for itself.

Gael O’Brien May 2, 2013

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien is The Ethics Coach columnist for Entrepreneur Magazine; she is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine — her April column is about the road to second chances.

The Week in Ethics: Abramson, Mayer and the Road Ahead for Women Leaders

Jill Abramson, the first female executive editor of the New York Times, whose tenure in her first 18-months has yielded four Pulitzer Prizes. is the subject of a hit-and-run POLITICO piece this week quoting anonymous journalists at the paper criticizing her brusque, dismissive, non-empathetic style, labeling her “very, very unpopular.”

It is difficult to imagine a reporter having access to or using such anecdotal anonymous information about male leaders in other industries.

Much has been said in recent weeks about a double standard in judging men and women leaders. For example, Best Buy CEO Hubert Joly was treated very differently in the media than Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer when both leaders ended their company’s telecommuting policies. Mayer’s decision, which came first, received national media coverage and criticism. However, inherent in the double standard is also an evolving expectation of what it expected of women leaders in turbulent times.

Over centuries, “leader” solidified  as a male noun. Labels of first female engineer at Google (Mayer), first female executive editor or just female CEO mean something in the lexicon of moving toward gender parity, but can rankle those who want to be judged by their results not gender.

Male leaders have had centuries to toughen to the inevitable criticism inherent in the accountability of leadership. Women leaders, in adjusting to the glare of attention now as part of a small group face the double-edged sword of presumed expectations about the kind of leaders they are or should be.

Research feeds the expectation that women are expected to have more developed emotional intelligence (EQ) than men. EQ’s self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, motivation and social skills– the so-called softer skills — are counted as crucial leadership skills and ones where women are considered to have an edge.

However, Abramson and Mayer emerged from the cultures that raised them — news organizations and engineering/technology — where outperforming, excelling, and high reliance on IQ and Systems Intelligence have high priority. Both assumed leadership in troubled organizations where they are required to drive change as their companies deal with economic, relevance, and technology challenges.

There is an expectation that women won’t make the same EQ blunders many men have. Mayer, who juggled her new parent status by building an office nursery, didn’t factor into Yahoo’s strategy and communication what the impact might be for employees who were also parents when she ended telecommuting; media had a field day with anonymous employee reactions.

Given the last several years of ongoing cuts in newsrooms, journalists still standing — perhaps even more especially those at the venerable New York Times — may feel demoralized. Not to operate with a heightened awareness of one’s impact on others invites criticism. One of the anonymous New York Times’ employees complained about Abramson: “There are days when she acts like she just doesn’t care.”

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg reinforces in Lean In (her book about empowering the next generation of women leaders) that  “success and likeability are positively correlated for men and negatively for women.” She cites a Harvard Business School case study of an entrepreneur who got negative reactions when the name Howard was changed to Heidi. Qualities that weren’t an issue for Howard became “not the kind of person you would want to hire or work for” when the gender was Heidi.

Further proof of the challenges facing successful women is evident in the controversy over Sandberg’s book,  several women reviewers indicated her wealth and status made her out-of-touch with ordinary career women. Leadership books written by men of status and wealth haven’t received similar critiques.

We don’t have yet an objective way of appraising women leaders — both accomplishments and criticisms can lend themselves too quickly to hyperbole. As things sort themselves out, one of the safety nets is to pay attention to red flags and address them. Abramson has been tagged (fairly or unfairly) with having a style attributed to many male leaders who’ve not been called on it publicly.

Expecting more from women leaders is about our giving and asking for more from everyone involved in service of creating highly productive workplaces that build trust and engagement.

Leadership is an intentional act of development evolving imperfectly. The road ahead for women leaders is helping define what is possible for leadership to create, moving into a way of being that is every bit as important in our increasingly unpredictable world as the way of doing.

Gael O’Brien April 25, 2013

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien is The Ethics Coach columnist for Entrepreneur Magazine and a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine — her April column is about the road to second chances.

The Week in Ethics: “Engaged Trusteeship,” Stakeholders and UVA Governance

Strength invokes a sense of power, muscle, vigor, and force.

It can, under the right circumstances, be a source of wisdom that invites collaboration, engagement, innovation and inspires trust.

In university governance, there is increasing tension about how authority is held or shared — how strength plays out. With the increasing involvement of business leaders in higher education, will they use the business style most comfortable to them or consider what would work best in a traditionally collaborative environment?

Turmoil at the University of Virginia (UVA) continues around how the Board of Visitors (trustees) is carrying out its authority. In spite of the board’s requesting that the Faculty Senate rescind its June 2012 vote of no confidence in it (for its process in ousting President Teresa Sullivan) the Senate has yet to comply. Sullivan, in her remarks to the board when she was reinstated June 18, 2012  said, “Corporate-style, top down leadership does not work at a great university. Sustained change with buy-in does work.”

One proponent of the actions of UVA’s board was the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA). In emails made public, ACTA President Anne Neal commended the board for doing its job, saying faculty and public outrage was “misplaced.” Neal wrote: “This is about the board’s responsibility to bring courageous, even innovative thinking to higher education when it is faced with many challenges….” ACTA is a proponent of what it calls “engaged trusteeship.”

This raises the question of what engaged trusteeship means in application. Does it preclude acknowledging a shared responsibility for governance among trustees, administrators and the faculty even as trustees by law have ultimate responsibility? Or preclude a recognition of the importance of stakeholders and building trust? The UVA experience would certainly seem a poster child for lost trust.

This week, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) issued a report on its investigation of President Sullivan’s dismissal, which it termed a “breakdown” in governance. The report referenced the business background of chair (rector) Dragas and most trustees, saying few had any experience in the governance of large, complex institutions. The report took issue with Dragas’ justification for Sullivan’s removal (that she lacked “boldness” and alacrity in “effecting transformative change”).

The report said in part,: “The rector’s rhetoric reflects a mindset of entrepreneurial control common in small and medium-sized business enterprises. The firms that occupy that economic niche must adjust quickly to changed market conditions, consumer tastes, and rapid shifts in financing or other aspects of the business landscapes. Managers of such enterprises may be taken on or let go, on short or no notice on the basis of a perceived need to change direction…or even a lack of compatibility with those in entrepreneurial control. This mindset ill fits the role of trusteeship in the modern university.”

AAUP and ACTA disagree on whether UVA’s accrediting body, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), had the authority to place UVA “on warning”  for governance violations involved in removing Sullivan. ACTA has made an appeal to U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan whose department upheld SACSCOC’s authority.

Meanwhile the issue of whether the board is micromanaging Sullivan and setting her up to fail persists. Information this month revealed that the board committee evaluating Sullivan had increased her goals for the academic year to 65, more than 20 of which Sullivan said she hadn’t seen before; the Faculty Senate responded to this and Dragas responded to them asking that they work together to build trust.

The challenge is that trust isn’t a top down invitation; it is a by-product of how authority is used and stakeholders involved and engaged.

While the top-down method isn’t a model for rebuilding trust, increasingly, business culture has changed for many companies as stakeholders have taken on greater importance and caused shifts in organizations’ openness,  transparency and desire to build shared value. Ironically, for UVA, they need look no farther than their Darden School of Business, and Professor Edward Freeman, for a leading authority on stakeholder management.

UVA has been under a microscope for nearly 10 months, a bellwether for issues facing higher education. How engaged trusteeship and engaged stakeholders are defined and connected will determine the university’s strength and its capacity for sustained growth and innovation.

Gael O’Brien March 15, 2013

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine; her February 2013  column in Business Ethics Magazine is on trust in leaders and institutions. She is The Ethics Coach columnist for Entrepreneur Magazine.

Note: The  rock pictured above was painted by a student at Robert Adams Middle School.

The Week in Ethics: 2012 Leadership Wins and Losses

One of the most powerful lessons from 2012 is how leaders use their influence.

Consider some examples of career sky dives from three men highly regarded in their field who failed to use their influence in ways to keep trust with  their constituencies: former CIA Director David Petraeus (an affair with his biographer); former Penn State University President Graham Spanier (criminal charges filed); and Lance Armstrong (stripped of all seven Tour de France medals).

Demonstrating effective personal influence tackling social or political issues is a hard road for CEOs, presumably easier for politicians. In the examples of the leaders of the City of New York, Chick-Fil-A, and Patagonia there were mixed results.

At the University of Virgina (UVA), influence was exerted over organizational change in a manner that drew widespread criticism.

While not all politicians are willing to risk using political capital to further social issues, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg risked unpopularity in escalating his war on obesity by banning the sale of large sugary drinks. The ban approved in September by New York City’s Health Board takes effect in March 2013. New York is the first U. S. city to take such action.

“It’s not perfect, Bloomberg said, “it’s not the only answer, it’s not the only cause of people being overweight – but we’ve got to do something. We have an obligation to warn you when things are not good for your health.”

Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy found himself in a firestorm of controversy last summer when the national restaurant chain used company dollars to support anti-gay marriage groups; this pleased some patrons, disenfranchised others and resulted in widespread protests that continued with different players once the company indicated it would no longer support political or social issues.

Patagonia’s founder and chairman Yvon Chouinard has become a leading corporate voice in environmental responsibility by taking small, consistent steps to address how his company does business. He has served as a volunteer adviser to Wal-Mart in green business practices. Patagonia’s mission statement seeks to bring people together: “Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.”  

Chouinard’s 2012 book The Responsible Company: What We’ve Learned From Patagonia’s First 40 Years  includes a checklist of 263 recommendations to help companies benchmark where they are and where they might want to be to improve their environmental track record.

An accrediting body accused UVA’s Board of Visitors of using its influence to compromise the institution’s integrity, and failing to follow appropriate governance procedures in the ouster of President Teresa Sullivan. Sullivan was reinstated after faculty and student protests.

Rector Helen Dragas (Board of Visitors’ chair) had a vision for the university that didn’t include Sullivan leading it; Sullivan had been hired two years before. Citing challenges facing higher education, Dragas led an effort to force her out  that met with strong, but civil, resistance from university constituencies who supported both Sullivan and a university culture that didn’t handle disagreements in the manner used by the Board of Visitors.

Governor Bob McDonnell reappointed Dragas to another term; however she has been meeting with Virginia legislative leaders lobbying to keep her position; the Legislature, which vets gubernatorial appointments, will vote in January on her reappointment.

Authority has limits. Influence fueled by earned trust has an infinite spectrum in which to operate.

Gael O’Brien December 31, 2012

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine; her December 2012 column is “Women in the C-Suite: Finding Ways to Break the Seal.” She is The Ethics Coach columnist for Entrepreneur Magazine.

The Week in Ethics: NRA Leadership, Culture of Violence, and the Self-Seal

We will know in a few months whether National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre’s response to the murders of first graders, teachers and the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut speaks for the majority of its 4 million members.

LaPierre blames the murders on gun restrictions and America’s culture of violence — which he says includes the media, video games, movies, and music, and not enough guns — with military-type assault rifles and other weapons of war being readily available not relevant to the problem.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun,” LaPierre said, “is a good guy with a gun,” proposing that armed volunteers (trained by the NRA) be deployed in every school. Gun control advocates denounce that position.

LaPierre, very protective of his turf, dismissed that gun control in any form will make any difference to violence, and isn’t worth addressing.

His parochial response reminded me of the dangers of leaders who “self-seal” and encourage the self-sealing of their organizations.

In Finding Our Way: Leadership For an Uncertain Time, Margaret (Meg) Wheatley writes: “We create ourselves by what we choose to notice. Once this work of self-authorship has begun, we inhabit the world we’ve created. We self-seal. We don’t notice anything except those things that confirm what we already think about who we already are.”

The capacity to look beyond our own point of view shifts this dynamic. It is also at the heart of effective leadership.

Wheatley continues: “When we succeed in moving outside our normal process of self-reference and can look at ourselves with self-awareness, then we have a chance of changing. We break the seal. We notice something new.”

Rather than pointing the finger at every other aspect of society as contributing to a culture of violence, and summarily excluding any impact of any type of gun, the NRA should be at the table as one of many participants looking at how we change a culture of violence.

It hasn’t committed yet on whether it will participate in the effort to reduce gun violence led by Vice President Biden, but said if gun control is part of the agenda, it won’t.

What will it take for the self-seal to be broken?

Gael O’Brien December 23, 2012

The Week in Ethics

This is the second of a two-part series; last week’s column was Changing a Culture of Violence. Gael O’Brien is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine; read her December 2012 column.