The Week in Ethics: Change and the Power of Thinking Differently

In 2011, complex issues like social justice, income inequity, unemployment, and corruption were taken to streets around the world in violent and nonviolent marches, riots, and acts of rebellion … leaders and institutions were denounced. The issues weren’t resolved by the stroke of midnight in what has been called the year of the Protester.

What has 2012 inherited? Grave societal problems which continue to fester; the failure of business as usual to address them; and, the need to re-earn trust in order to make systemic changes.

In the United States, it is possible Occupy Wall Street has already made its greatest contribution. The movement tapped into, and gave voice to, the anger, frustration, and distrust felt by untold numbers of Americans impacted by the economic meltdown, who aren’t sure how they will regain their footing and are afraid nothing has really changed to prevent it happening again.

It is also possible Occupy will evolve to become an effective catalyst for change. It could learn a lot from the legacy of the Freedom Riders.

Occupy protesters, in voicing their dissent about the status quo, exposed the discomfort government and institutions have with dissent, the First Amendment notwithstanding. Local government leaders’ response to encampments was about hygiene and public safety (which cost millions of dollars) rather than willingness or ability to engage in nonpartisan forums about the public policy issues marking the protests.

The contrast between what Occupy calls the 99 percent and the 1 percent is particularly dramatized by CEO compensation, a disparity that has been an issue for years. In one study of CEOs, they earn 343 times more than a typical worker.

In 2012, the SEC will require the disclosure of the ratio of CEOs’ total compensation to the median total compensation for all other company employees. The question remains whether the inevitable embarrassment will be the driver to lead CEOs to say “enough” or for directors to modify compensation awards.

The concept of two distinct societies is reminiscent of the disparities Michael Harrington pointed out in The Other America: Poverty in the United States which was a catalyst for the antipoverty legislation in the 1960s. The issue now becomes:

• What kind of meaningful social and economic change is possible for this decade?
• What will be the combination/collaboration of leaders driving change?
• What will enable leaders to convene the authentic conversation that shifts the business-as-usual gridlock to what needs to be done differently to create change?

We are where we are now because no matter how bad it gets, we adhere, lock step, to business as usual. Two examples from California (where January 5, 2012, after months of talking openly about projected state budget shortfalls, the Governor announced the 2011-2012 budget faces a $9.2 billion problem):

• At the University of California (UC) campuses tuition has been raised twice this academic year by nearly 18 percent. Nonetheless, last month UC Regents voted to increase the salaries of a dozen administrators (already in the $200,000 range) 6 to 23 percent.

• In the California State University system (CSU), trustees dismissed protests from students and CA Governor Jerry Brown when they voted both to raise tuition 12 percent this academic year, as well as pay the new president of CSU San Diego $100,000 more than his predecessor, raising his salary to $400,000, the highest in the CSU system.

These kinds of decisions, like Wall Street companies — who received federal bail out money — paying out huge bonuses, all have rationalizations that create the contracts or systems or expectations that lock us into a business-as-usual mentality that only works when everyone is enjoying unprecedented prosperity. It is a strategy that reacts to a piece of the challenge – the well-intentioned desire to attract and retain talented people – while missing, to its peril, the bigger picture of economic reality that calls for different solutions.

There are ways to upend business as usual. Fresno County (CA) School Superintendent Larry Powell knowing budget cuts threatened to decimate county school programs, retired from his $235,000 a year job with 3 years remaining on his contract in an arrangement  that put the more than $800,000 of salary and benefits he would have been paid back into the county’s school districts’ budget.

He was rehired the next day to run the 35 school districts at a salary of $31,020 with no benefits, which he will give to charity. He and his wife determined their financial needs were met with their pensions. He was committed to protecting an anti-bullying program, arts programs and needed teaching positions if more layoffs occurred.

The power of one individual to think differently to create significant change.

Recently, I saw again the commercial Apple did in 1997 when it re-branded itself. It reminds us that in change, paradigms shift, risks are taken, and leaders lead.

Gael O’Brien    January 6, 2012

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine.  Her latest column is “Freedom Riders’ Legacy: Creating a Culture of Common Purpose”

The Week in Ethics: Culture Kills — The Legacy of Massey Energy

When former CEO Don Blankenship left Massey Energy a year ago taking $12 million in severance, a consulting contract for two years, and hefty retirement and pension packages, he also left refusing to participate in federal investigations into his mine’s deadly explosion.

In April 2010, 29 miners died in Massey’s Upper Big Branch (UBB), the worst mining disaster in 40 years. Massey, under Blankenship, never accepted responsibility for the explosion and blamed the federal government.

On December 6, 2011, the U.S. Department of Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) issued a 1,000 page report of its investigation into the UBB tragedy. Alpha Natural Resources, which bought Massey earlier this year, agreed to pay $209 million in penalties (civil, criminal and restitution) for Massey Energy’s role in the explosion. While criminal action won’t be pursued against Alpha, the settlement doesn’t cover Blankenship or other Massey managers.

The settlement agreement with Alpha includes that $80 million be spent to improve safety and infrastructure in UBB and all underground mines Alpha owns. while another $48 million will finance academic research on mine safety.

Also on December 6, MHSA fined Alpha $10.8 million, the largest penalty in agency history, and cited Massey’s corporate culture as the root cause of the tragedy. They issued 369 citations for violations, saying that Massey “promoted and enforced a workplace culture that valued production over safety, and broke the law as they endangered the lives of miners.”

Included in the findings are:

• Examples of systematic, intentional, and aggressive efforts by Massey to avoid compliance with health and safety standards
• Testimony management intimidated miners saying their raising safety issues jeopardized their jobs
• Advance notification to mine personnel of state and federal inspections
• Two sets of books kept regarding safety and health hazards concealing certain hazards
• Failure to perform required mine examinations adequately and remedy known hazards and violations
• Failure to provide adequate training
• Failure to take necessary precautions that would have prevented the April 5, 2010 explosion

Massey’s legacy is that its leadership — Blankenship and the board of directors — failed to follow laws or create a work climate that would have avoided the conditions that led to the explosion and loss of life. Whether or not criminal charges are brought against Blankenship or any members of its previous leadership, the report’s findings indicate Massey was run in a manner that put its employees and shareholders at risk.

In any risk management study its board addressed, culture was apparently overlooked as Massey’s leading vulnerability. Massey became another poster child proving that culture matters; when tone at the top, transparency, integrity, and building trust are subsumed by short-term profits, crisis inevitably ensues.

So, in this case, culture killed.

“The best tribute to the 29 Massey workers” who died, I wrote in an April 2010 column on Blankenship ” is that safety really becomes Massey’s top priority and that going forward, no one should ever be injured or die in a Massey mine from issues the company can prevent. There is no acceptable tolerance level for deaths in the workplace; to operate as if there is constitutes a failure of leadership.”

Small comfort to the 29 families and hundreds of people affected by the UBB tragedy, but it is a start.

Gael O’Brien    December 7, 2011

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine .  Her latest column is “Campus Crises Highlight Risk Management Weaknesses”

The Week in Ethics: How PSU’s President and Coach Paterno Lost the Game

Update January 23, 2012, Joe Paterno died January 22, 2012. See my column “After Paterno, Penn State’s Struggle to Rebuild Trust”in Business Ethics Magazine.

Update December 3, 2011, In a New York Times interview published today, Jerry Sandusky  says “I am not the monster I’ve been made out to be,” asserting, “I’ve never engaged in sexual acts with these young kids.” Speaking in incomplete and disjointed sentences , he says in an audio excerpt, “Some things could be plausible that they came up with. I don’t know. They haven’t been fair. And I guess it has created a monster.”

UPDATE November 9, 2011, 8 PM   Coach Paterno and President Spanier fired by Penn State University Trustees in a meeting tonight. Effective immediately, Spanier is replaced by Rodney Erickson as acting president and Paterno is replaced by interim Head Coach Tom Bradley. In a statement, the trustees said the university “has always strived for honesty, integrity and the highest moral standards in all of our activities. We promise you that we are committed to restoring public trust in our university”.

It makes no sense that a university president, who is also a noted sociologist, and a Hall of Fame football coach, who is a sports icon, would fail to do everything in their power to find out if young boys were being sexually abused on campus by someone involved with the university’s football program.

And yet, Graham Spanier,  President of Penn State University, and head coach Joe Paterno didn’t, according to the findings of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office Grand Jury investigation. The investigation addressed the reported sexual assaults of male children by Gerald (Jerry) Sandusky, one of Paterno’s former coaches.

Strident criticism has mounted in the last few days calling for both men to resign or be fired. Paterno announced his resignation today (11/9/11) to occur at the end of the season. Rumors have escalated that Spanier will lose his job. (Spanier was fired tonight as was Paterno.)

These are honorable men who have been associated with high ethical standards so the question becomes why weren’t they vigilant in getting to the truth or dealing with the matter head on?

Is it  about protecting a storied football program that hasn’t had a NCAA violation?

Or that even in service of good – the shaping and educating of college students – leaders can lose their way, caught by compartmentalization, rationalization, fear, or misplaced priorities?

Whatever the answer, the university’s scandal is also about failed leadership and the harm done to trust and reputation.

Paterno, PSU head football coach for the last 45 years, and one of the most revered coaches in football history, said about the sex abuse revelations, “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”

Paterno and Spanier, president for the last 16 years, were not charged in the investigation. However, criminal charges related to 40 counts of child sex abuse were filed November 5, 2011 against Sandusky; Athletic Director Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, were charged with perjury and failure to report suspected child abuse. All three pled not guilty.

The incidents of child sex abuse alleged against Sandusky are outlined in a timeline. Many are reported to have occurred when Sandusky brought children to campus. He founded an organization for at-risk youth. However, the 1998 and 2002 incidents in campus showers particularly raise questions about what Paterno and Spanier knew, should have known, and what should have been done.

Sandusky admitted inappropriate sexual conduct in a 1998 investigation triggered by an 11 year-old’s mother. The investigation involved PSU security and the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare. He didn’t lose his job. In 2002, a graduate assistant saw him having anal intercourse with a 10-year old, and reported it. In dispute is what Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier understood to have happened. PSU did not conduct an investigation according to the graduate assistant, now a PSU coach, nor were the police notified as required by law. The child wasn’t identified to see if he needed help or treatment. Sandusky, who retired in 1999 but was a volunteer in the football program, had his locker room keys taken away, but didn’t  lose campus access.

When the Grand Jury made charges against Curley and Schultz, Spanier announced his unconditional confidence in how both had handled the accusations, a highly unusual step for a leader to take before all the facts are in.

It is hard to understand why Spanier didn’t insist on an investigation to ensure he knew whether the university was being put at risk, or putting community children at risk. It begs the question if these incidents had been associated with an English teacher, rather than a football coach, would the PSU’s actions have been the same?

Much will be said about Coach Paterno’s legacy. At 84-years old, with more than 60 years involved in PSU, he is beloved far beyond the university’s campus. Why he didn’t fire Sandusky or eliminate his volunteer status isn’t yet known.

Spanier called the allegations about Sandusky “troubling. He said, “It is appropriate that they be investigated thoroughly. Protecting children requires the utmost vigilance.”

Protecting children does require utmost vigilance; a vigilance neither his actions or those of  his team appear to have demonstrated to PSU’s stakeholders.

He moderates a national talk show “Expert Opinion,” on Big Ten Network on issues impacting college athletics.  If he retains his position at PSU and as show moderator,  perhaps his next topic should be “How to Protect College Athletes and Community Children from Predatory Coaches.”

Gael O’Brien     November 9, 2011

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine .  Her latest column is about CEO firings.

The Ethics of Good Bye: Steve Jobs’ Legacy

The text of Steve Jobs’ 2005 commencement address to Stanford graduates is about a commitment to a life well lived. At its core, it is about knowing yourself, having the courage to hold on in the journey of discovering what you love to do, and then doing nothing less than what you believe is your best work.

His address is about gratitude, appreciation, passion, curiosity, integrity, honoring intuition, creativity, humility, confidence, failure, and how to begin again.

It is about what it means to stay hungry and stay foolish.

It is also about death, the one thing he points out that none of us escape.  And today, October 5, 2011, death claimed him.

The reality is that in spite of his brilliance, Steve Jobs didn’t always succeed. And he admits it, seeing failure for what it is, a chance to learn and begin again looking at things freshly.

Much will be written about his leadership.

However, in an age when the newest fad is to try to proclaim one’s “authenticity,” Steve Jobs’ legacy is that he didn’t make it about him; his leadership was about leading his team to a shared purpose. It was about creating trust and leading authentically.

And along the way, he changed the world.

Gael O’Brien, October 5, 2011

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine .  Her latest column is about the challenge of authentic leadership.

The Week in Ethics: TOMS, Starting Something that Matters

When Social Responsibility is really a part of the character of the company — rather than one of the many things a company does that stakeholders expect — it becomes an organic part of the story of who the company is, what it stands for.

Social Responsibility is second nature to companies that are aligned with the principles of Conscious Capitalism. For the Container Store, Stonyfield and TOMS, among many others, having a successful business is linked with a mission to impact society in a positive way.  For these companies social responsibility is in their identity and business strategy.

A recent book, Start Something That Matters, by Blake Mycoskie, tells the story of TOMS, but the larger point is what happens to leadership when the mission is allowed to transcend the leader.

TOMS name evolved from the idea of Shoes for a Better Tomorrow and Tomorrow’s Shoes. For every pair sold, TOMS donates a new pair to poor children. Since its founding five years ago, TOMS has donated one million pairs of shoes to needy children.

While TOMS story is significant, Mycoskie’s focus invites readers to find and develop their own story. He relies on   entrepreneurial advice  to start small, taking one step at a time. His table of contents includes wisdom like: “face your fears,” “be resourceful without resources,” “keep it simple,” “build trust,” “giving is good business” and “the final step.”

“When you have a memorable story about who you are and what your mission is,” he points out, “your success no longer depends on how experienced you are or how many degrees you have or who you know. A good story transcends boundaries, breaks barriers, and opens doors.” He adds that this is not only a key to starting a business, but also “to clarifying your own personal identity and choices.”

In the world of social media in which we live,  a story evokes emotion and forges a connection, he says; people who buy TOMS “talk about the support of our mission rather than simply telling people they bought a nice shoe from some random shoe company.”

Mycoskie’s views on leadership changed. He said he had wanted to become a rock-star business leader, a CEO cult figure of his generation, when he started out in business more than ten years ago in his early twenties. However, the more he learned, the more he aspired to servant leadership. He wanted to create a culture where everyone in the organization feels attached to TOMS, can be a spokesman when appropriate, and is helped to help others perform to their fullest abilities.

At a time when trust is very low – in business and politics – with ongoing examples of leaders not owning mistakes, Mycoskie believes in admitting and correcting them. While there is tolerance for making mistakes, trust is such an important value at TOMS that there is  zero tolerance for breaking trust internally.

TOMS and other conscious capitalism companies help drive awareness that trust is gained through a focus on respecting  customers and employees with both products and work environments that value the person.

Mycoskie says he has shifted the goal for his business. While relieving children’s suffering by giving shoes to those without them is still a powerful driver, engaging more people in identifying and creating solutions to the world’s problems is his goal.

It is a goal that encourages and influences people to start something that matters.

A timeless message for any of us at any age but one that in 2011 seems especially important; it opens up further possibility for what social responsibility can mean in an ever uncertain world.

Gael O’Brien    September 29, 2011

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine

The Week in Ethics: How US Air Dealt with a Hostile Work Environment

The captain of a US Air flight announced the plane was leaving its runway position and returning to the gate, promising more information as soon as possible. We later learned that an argument between two stewardesses in the galley had escalated and one of them called the purser to complain. Some passengers seated in the front rows may have heard the argument.

While the flight was delayed nearly two hours, the captain handled it by providing straight information without spin. The result was proof again that transparency creates trust.

About 30 minutes after the plane returned to the gate, the captain announced that a personality conflict between two crew members was responsible for the delay. He apologized for conduct that was unprofessional and acknowledged with regret that everyone on the plane was being inconvenienced. He indicated the plane would take off as soon as a replacement crew member arrived.

The mood that triggered the initial, irritated groans as the captain began speaking shifted by the time he had finished. One passenger called out he’d be happy to help with the beverage service if it meant leaving sooner. While another chimed in he was willing to forgo beverage service. Some laughed, others got on cell phones to check on connecting flights or adjust schedules with their offices. There was a mild hum as people began talking to those around them about what an odd situation it was – both that the captain was so forthcoming and that a crew conflict had gotten out of hand.

A stewardess left the galley for the rear of the plane and was stopped mid-way by a passenger asking if she was involved or would be leaving. She answered she was staying, but hoped the other person would have to leave; she said she had had “her teeth rammed down her throat” so she notified the purser. That stewardess remained on the flight. When a new  stewardess arrived, the plane took off.

US Air has traditionally ranked poorly in customer service and on time departures. Ironically, the day after that flight an article cited the airline’s progress in improving its industry ranking over the last three years and its turnaround in service and image.

Later, I asked two United flight crew members if they knew of any instances when flight crew arguments caused a plane to return to the gate.  Neither had ever heard of it happening. Nonetheless, a stewardess pointed out, safety has to be the top consideration on any aircraft. Flight crew members have to be able to work well together and trust each other. They have to deal as a team with any potential medical emergency among passengers or respond to any emergency situation impacting the plane. If they can’t act as a team, passengers are at risk.

Problems are inevitable in business and among employees. However, it is the leader’s response to a problem that determines much of what will follow. On the US Air flight, the captain set a tone that impacted how those negatively affected reacted. He spoke directly about the cause of a problem, told how it was being addressed, apologized, recognized that everyone was being impacted, and then took care of the problem – in this case by taking people to their destination safely.

It is a formula for leadership that builds trust and reputation, a formula we don’t see often enough.

Gael O’Brien    September 19, 2011

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine

The Week in Ethics: Leadership Lessons from OSU’s Football Scandal

Update: December 21, 2011: The NCAA Committee on Infractions ended its investigation of OSU 12/20/11 and cited OSU for “failure to monitor.” Sanctions include a one-year bowl ban and losing nine scholarships over the next three years. OSU Athletic Director responded, “We are surprised and disappointed with the NCAA’s decision.” OSU indicated it would not appeal.

Ohio State University (OSU) President Gordon Gee took a public stand in full support of his immensely popular, and generally victorious, football coach when Jim Tressel covered up NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) violations and lied to Gee and others. Gee resisted calls for Tressel’s resignation for months, amid ongoing questions and criticism about why OSU would tolerate Tressel’s behavior.

Gee, while acknowledging Tressel made mistakes, answered critics saying he believed in looking at the “body of work” of an individual. Finally, Tressel resigned over Memorial Day weekend, just as an article  in Sports Illustrated hit the newsstand, accusing Tressel of additional misconduct.

The reality is that in any organization a trusted member of the team can lie to the CEO and put him or her, as well as the institution, at risk. Using OSU’s football scandal as context, here are five questions useful for leaders to consider in crisis planning well before a problem develops.

What role, if any, should the CEO have in the investigation of a “friend” or extremely visible, popular figure accused of wrong doing where trustees/directors have a keen interest in the outcome?

Gee made the decision to get personally involved and it backfired, as indeed it often will when leaders get involved in investigations. Gee met with Tressel for three hours in the President’s house in January 2011 when he learned Tressel had lied. Gee, who has a law degree, been president of five universities (including OSU twice) and has sat on several corporate boards, is arguably savvier than most. Nonetheless, his involvement didn’t protect OSU’s reputation. When it became evident months later there was more Tressel baggage, both Gee and OSU took another reputation hit.

How does a CEO best serve as the standard-bearer for an institution’s reputation when a scandal occurs?

Many CEOs, like Gordon Gee, give a human face to an organization’s brand by their accessibility to stakeholders, including media. However in a crisis, determining the balance between the polarities of “no comment” and taking sides is a fundamental test of leadership. When Gee aligned early with the revered coach, in spite of his lying, saying he was proud to call the coach his friend, Gee mistakenly believed he knew all there was to know. That miscalculation harmed OSU as well as Gee’s credibility. Too late to reign in Tressel’s larger than life status, accorded him by Gee and others because of his winning record, reputation, by default, was defined by a fallen coach.

How does a CEO reinforce that fairness and consistency are part of the culture?

Gee talked about subscribing to a person’s “body of work” – citing Tressel’s ten years of winning seasons, molding football players, his leadership in fundraising for campus buildings, as well as visiting the troops in Iraq. But body of work is subjective. Unlike the criteria used by Ethics and Compliance operations to address misconduct, it can be subject to political and personal considerations the more high-profile an offender. The OSU colleges have honor codes that encourage the highest standards of personal, academic and professional conduct. When a coach or any senior leader violates those standards it is a teachable moment. Making allowances for misconduct by a  leader weakens a belief that the code matters.

Is the CEO willing to have an ongoing role actively supporting ethics and compliance in the organization and if so, what will it look like?

Regarding ethics, it is a question of intentionality. CEOs have the opportunity in direct and indirect ways to reinforce an organization’s code of conduct and values by their actions, what they say, and how they lead. It is that simple.

Gee observed in an interview that no matter how good compliance procedures are, someone can still get around them. Nonetheless, OSU is revamping its compliance and crisis operation. However, the Achilles heel in any compliance operation is the degree to which a leader is willing to get involved. Gee said he sent a signal he didn’t want to be bothered. “None of us want to hear bad news,” he said. “We hear what we want to hear. It’s not just about people being forthcoming. It’s about us being receptive, and I start with myself.”

How would the CEO answer the question what we really want the institution to be known for?

Generally a crisis is a time when an organization talks about what it stands for; if it has fallen short, how it will regain trust. OSU held a press conference when the story broke that Tressel had lied. The athletic director, Tressel and Gee each spoke. While Gee’s remarks made reference to “integrity” and “character,” they were used to praise Tressel’s program. How Gee participated substantiated that OSU stands for football.

A crisis also reveals what a leader is willing to stand for.  Gee talked about a president having three bullets; he implied he wasn’t willing to use one of them to fire Tressel who had friends on the board. But consider if he had fired him in January. A worse case scenario? OSU would have lost the Sugar Bowl. Gee would have faced alumnae outrage.

As it happened, given the NCAA violations, OSU’s Sugar Bowl victory was vacated, as was the 2010 championship season. What did OSU gain by standing by Tressel?

The Tressel scandal is less about damage control and more about the reality that how an institution responds to a crisis gives definition to who it is. The real potential for Monday morning quarterbacking here is whether OSU and Gee liked the answer.

Gael O’Brien      September 8, 2011

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine

What Diana Nyad and Dale Earnhardt Jr. Teach Us About the Ethics of Heroism

Heroes inspire.

Maybe that is why we keep looking for them in all the wrong places. A recent Newsweek column, “The League of Fallen Idols,” references Roger Clemens’s perjury mistrial. We celebrate superhuman performance on the playing field, the mountains of the Tour de France, the court, and on the green. And the reality is that superhuman performance around winning often has been an illusion.

Recently, I’ve been struck by two examples of a heroism that does inspire. Long distance swimmer Diana Nyad and NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. have both come up short this month in the prize department, but offer examples of how to persevere through disappointment, undiminished in search of a goal.

Earlier this month Nyad failed to achieve a dream she’s held onto for more than 30 years; she’d focused her training around it for the last two years.  Her Cuba to Key West swim had to be aborted midway because of a severe asthma attack lasting nearly 12 hours and wracking pain in her shoulder.

She said after being pulled from the water: “I wasn’t the best swimmer I could be — the asthma and the shoulder made sure of that.”  She continued: “I was my most courageous self.”

Nyad said she believed the sea and weather conditions were favorable to her swim, and that she had trained and strengthened her body to peak shape, celebrating what she had achieved at almost 62 years of age. “I thought this was my time.”

She said of her experience: “I was the best person I could be … that’s the message. I dug down, I dug deep … Whatever you’re doing, do your job well.”

Dale Earnhardt Jr. says he doesn’t dwell on his losing streak. The son of NASCAR icon Dale  Earnhardt, killed in a race 10 years ago, Earnhardt approaches his racing with respect for his dad’s legacy and an ethic of wanting to be known as someone who acted right, who was honest, and ran his car well.

It has been more than three years since NASCAR’s most popular driver has won a race. Earnhardt has run out of fuel in the last lap, had a wheel come off, overheated engines, crew mistakes, bad tires, flawed pit strategy, driver error and been caught in others’ accidents. Through it all he has kept an upbeat attitude and a commitment to do his best to win. But his sense of winning isn’t just about him: he’s also given up a chance for first place in order to draft a teammate in a better position to come in first.

In the inevitable interviews after a near or far miss, Earnhardt doesn’t do PR spin. He calls it as he sees it, seeing himself a part of a larger whole – no entitlement, no excuses. And on to the next race, practicing harder, figuring out what he has to do to improve. For him, each race is a new chance.

And for Nyad, part of the purpose of her swim was to invite the world to re-think age, reconsider what it means to be 62. She did that. Her reaction three weeks after abandoning her swim was pride in her effort, but given the two years of training, she admits to feeling cheated as an athlete and isn’t sure what she’ll do with that.

No story book endings because the ending is always being written as long as the human spirit propels itself through the disappointment, an inevitable part of reality, to the next thing.

That’s a definition of heroism that has enduring inspiration.

Gael O’Brien      August 30, 2011

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine; in a recent column she writes about Ohio State University’s handling of a football scandal

The Week in Ethics: What The Economist Got Wrong About Promoting Women

“The wrong way to promote women,” in a recent issue of The Economist, dismisses the serious inequity of  women holding 1 out of 10 corporate board seats in Europe, and 1.5 out of 10 in U.S. companies by saying nurture, not a glass ceiling, holds women back.

Therefore, quotas — action many governments in Europe have taken in order to increase the representation of women on boards — are unnecessary and “do more harm than good,” according to the article.

In pushing its nurture thesis, the article creates a straw man: the real obstacles in a woman’s career are children, aging parents, and companies that aren’t sufficiently family friendly.

So what if you don’t have children and ignore aging relatives? What if you don’t make the mistakes done apparently by the caregiver stereotypes cited — disrupt your career by switching to part-time at some point, decline opportunities at night to network, or turn down assignments overseas to build experience — is advancement to senior management and subsequent consideration for board positions yours?

Well yes. No. Maybe? Once you overcome the pesky problem acknowledged that companies often want people who’ve had financial or operational experience for top positions and “these fields are still male-dominated.”

Prejudices, the article admits, “about women and work have deep roots,” but the author encourages companies to find ways to  overcome all that. Being more family friendly to attract female talent is one way suggested. Telecommuting is offered as an example of the flexible thinking required. Who would have thought  that was an express train to the boardroom?

The irony is that in trying to show what the alternatives are to governments imposing quotas to increase the representation of women on boards, the article offers no alternative except to admonish companies to figure out how to overcome the prejudice question “to win the talent war, and reap the rewards.” And that takes us back to square one.

Some companies have done a terrific job advancing gender diversity, and according to studies by Catalyst and others, experiencing financial rewards as well.  But given that only 28 women are CEOs of Fortune 1000 companies and women hold only 15.7 percent of seats on corporate boards, we have an urgent problem that is shared by every other country.

Are quotas the answer?

It would be a heated but relevant debate. Out of which we are likely to get better public policy, and answers that go considerably beyond telecommuting.

Gael O’Brien        August 3, 2011

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien also writes for Business Ethics Magazine. This column is a companion piece to “Women in the Boardroom: Should the U.S. Have Quotas?” in Business Ethics Magazine.

Programs Like Panera Cares and the Implications for Corporate Responsibility

When I heard Ronald Shaich, Executive Chairman of Panera Bread, say “bring your humanity to work” recently, it suggested a way of operating that could make corporate crises a thing of the past.

That comment has rich implications for ethical leadership and building corporate culture so that an organization flourishes. It also speaks to the impact business can have on society, which is what Shaich meant. The impact raises questions about the deeper definition possible for the term “corporate responsibility”.

Bill Gates has raised the bar on how business can leverage their competencies and use financial success to address social problems globally. He and others have recognized that governments are not going to solve the world’s problems.

Shaich indicated that business needed to step up beyond writing checks and donating goods. In Panera’s case, donating about $150 million a year in food wasn’t making a difference in impacting the one in four children in the United States struggling with hunger; an issue Panera cared the most about.

Listening to a news story about a small Colorado cafe that served the poor, he got an idea. Building off what Panera does best in over 1,450 communities in North America, the company did research and tested business models and locations. The goal was to develop a sustainable, pay-what-you-can community cafe concept and convince shareholders the idea made business sense. They called it Panera Cares.

Panera created the Panera Bread Foundation which launched three nonprofit cafes serving the full menu in communities that have both poor and affluent residents – suburbs of St. Louis and Detroit, as well as in Portland (Oregon). They created a model of  shared responsibility where everyone is treated with dignity and those who can pay more do in order to cover the cost of others.

It was a risk Panera tried to mitigate by taking small steps, learning, and improving on the concept. When Panera opened the first community cafe in St. Louis in May 2010, Shaich worked with employees and volunteers the first two weeks to iron out any issues.  The second community cafe launched six months later, and the third, this past January.

The results? Nearly 12,000 people are fed each week in the three cafes. Panera found that shared responsibility works. About 20 percent of customers leave more than the suggested donation, 20 percent leave less or nothing, and 60 percent pay the suggested amount. About 75 – 80 percent of the retail cost of the food is covered. There is a donation bin in place of a cash register.

Dealing with hunger isn’t just about food, it is also about jobs. In St. Louis, Panera has begun a job training, work/life skills program for at-risk youth and expects the program will roll out in the second cafe this summer. Panera isn’t over promising; it just keeps taking steps to leverage what they know how to do to impact hunger and at-risk youth.

At a TED conference last November, Shaich invited attendees to imagine a world where a company like Wal-Mart handled food distribution for food banks, or banks like J.P. Morgan and Bank of America were as worried and involved in the people getting foreclosed, and how to avoid foreclosure, as they are in doing the foreclosures. Or imagine, he added, a world in which the outstanding management talent at companies like Ford and GE etc. were applied to the enormous responsibilities NGOs face all over the world.

The reality is that the definition of a company’s stakeholders has changed; they are now all of society. The impact of a constantly shifting global economy, and the inter-relatedness of problems in one part of the world impacting the rest, take away the firewalls leaving us on each others’ doorsteps.

Panera’s entrepreneurial approach — working a plan that makes business sense, taking small steps, creating shared responsibility, and providing a sustainable outcome — might be a model for others who are looking at corporate responsibility more narrowly. It is about taking what a company can do well and transferring it to a situation that meets a critical social need. The possibilities are endless.

Imagine a world where we bring our humanity to work. How much easier it would be for organizations to earn and keep trust and reputation.

Gael O’Brien, July 11, 2011

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine