The Week in Ethics: Leadership Lessons at American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Posted June 18, 2013 by Gael O'Brien
Categories: Congress, Culture, Ethical Behavior, Ethical Leadership, Governance, Integrity, Leadership, Reputation

Tags: , , , , ,

column photo of ethics under microscope The integrity of the leader of an honorary society for independent public policy — founded  in 1780 during the American Revolution – is  under question as a result of misrepresentations on her resume and criticisms from former employees over her bullying, micromanaging management style.

While there is never a good moment for negative media attention, it is coming at a particularly awkward time for the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. It is landing on the eve of the June 19, 2013 release of a commission report the academy has guided for more than two years, expected to offer far reaching recommendations for education and cultural institutions.

Leslie Berlowitz, the head of the academy for the last 17 years, is now on leave while an internal investigation by an outside law firm addresses issues raised in a series of articles in the Boston Globe in June 2013. The articles indicate that the academy’s applications for at least three federal grants list Berlowitz having a doctorate from New York University (NYU) that NYU has no record of her completing. The National Endowment for the Humanities, which gave $1.2 million to the academy based on grant applications that included Berlowitz’s inflated credential, has referred the issue to its inspector general.  The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (charged with overseeing nonprofits) has also announced an investigation. Two others who gave grants to the academy (US Department of Energy and Carnegie Corporation of New York) are checking to see if false information was provided on their grant applications.

The articles indicate that in checking her resume against NYU records, where she worked before joining the academy, a job title for one position is misstated and length of service for another is misrepresented.  Academy employment ads refer to Berlowitz as “doctor” and further investigation by the Globe reporter found an email two years ago from Berkowitz where she implied she had a doctorate.

A month after turning down requests to be interviewed by the reporter and two weeks after the first Globe story was published, Berlowitz said in a statement that she “never intentionally misrepresented her accomplishments,” accepted responsibility for materials that left “an incorrect impression,” and acknowledged that she had the title of vice president of institutional advancement at NYU rather than academic advancement which, the Globe reported, has appeared on the academy website and in grant applications.  An academy spokesman originally blamed Berlowitz’s staff for resume errors, saying she was unaware of them.

The profile that emerges in the article is of a board/governing council extremely supportive of Berlowitz, who in 2004 bypassed the normal election process for membership into the Academy of Arts and Sciences — which honors the most accomplished scholars, innovators, and artists in their fields — when they added her as an inductee. They quietly inserted her name into “the original six-month-old announcement, a spokesman acknowledged, making it look as though Berlowtiz had been voted in along with everyone else in the spring.” Berlowitz’s $598,000 salary – higher than many college presidents’ — and first travel perks also indicate Board support. Former employees quoted in the article indicated the board ignored complaints about Berlowitz’s management style made to them.

The significant number of former employees willing to talk (anonymously and as named sources) to the Globe about their criticisms of Berlowitz’s leadership, calling her management style bullying, harsh, dismissive and micromanaging raise the question of what is motivating them. Is it a set up or revenge by those who believe they were treated badly capitalizing on her current vulnerability? Or is the issue an outcome of a detached governance process with too heavy reliance on the internal leader and no means to ensure that the leader’s management style and the organization’s work environment are functional and appropriate?

Either way it offers a cautionary tale about leaders vulnerability when they are unaware of the impact their leadership tone, style and communication have on employees; or worse, when they ignore or rationalize that impact without seeking to address it.

The unfolding saga at the academy also sends a message to boards that they have a responsibility to help an organization’s leader succeed by not just looking at the results, but being aware of the impact a leader is having on the larger team; and when there are red flags, stepping up to ensure the leader gets coaching in emotional intelligence or other issues, monitoring his or her workplace performance to be clear about expectations of improvement.

The academy’s purpose is to honor excellence. The need for all the investigations indicate that excellence has been compromised in terms of how the academy and their leaders have operated internally. Restoring integrity will involve transparency about the investigations’ findings, dealing directly with allegations about Leslie Berlowitz’s leadership, and putting as high a priority on how things are done internally as the achievements that result from them. The founding fathers would expect no less.

Gael O’Brien June 18, 2013

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien is The Ethics Coach columnist for Entrepreneur Magazine. Gael is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine; her June 2013 column looks at leadership vulnerabilities of departing OSU president Gordon Gee.

The Week in Ethics: Words Conveying Empowering Values Falling Out of Use

Posted May 22, 2013 by Gael O'Brien
Categories: Ethical Behavior, Leadership, Trust

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

photo of courageWords matter. We know that from the impact they can have on us. And the reaction our words can have on others.

Words can package the fuel that inspire us to behave in a way that brings out the best in ourselves and in others.

Using words like “courage,” “decency,” “honesty,” “conscience,” “patience,” “compassion,” and “modesty” paint a picture of someone who has qualities that inspire trust, whose behavior gives life to values we can admire. Perhaps someone whose leadership we’d willingly follow.

When we use the word “courage,” for example, to reflect back to a friend how we see her meeting cancer head on or whisper it to ourselves before having a difficult conversation with a boss or customer…..the word, and its connotation, fortifies.

“Courage” is one of many words that empower. However, to be a sustainable resource “courage,” and words like it have to be expressed; they need to describe behavior made evident or desired. And ironically, evidence points to these words falling out of use at a time when we need them most.

Shifts in language reflect a shift in culture based on the frequency of their use, according to New York Times columnist David Brooks who cites several studies in “What Our Words Tell Us” that indicate that words like “courage,” and the others just mentioned, decreased in use in the 20th century.

“A study by Pelin Kesebir and Selin Kesebir,”Brooks writes, “found that general moral terms like “virtue,” “decency” and “conscience” were used less frequently over the course of the 20th century. Words associated with moral excellence, like “honesty,” “patience” and “compassion” were used much less frequently.” Of the 50 words associated with moral virtue that their study identified, Brooks says that the Kesebirs found “that 74 percent were used less frequently as the century progressed.” According to the findings, particularly hard hit were courage words like “bravery” and “fortitude” which fell by 66 percent; while words like “thankfulness” and “appreciation” dropped by 49 percent.

We know that ethical behavior doesn’t flow from throwing the right words into a speech or on a website, poster or piece of paper. Enron’s Code of Conduct (63 pages) and personalized note paper printed at the bottom with the values “Respect,”Integrity,”Communication,” and “Excellence” attest to that. However, words in the mouths of leaders whose behavior consistently strives to model the values they talk about set a benchmark about what is expected. It sets the standard for “how we do things around here” where getting to stay means you “opt in.”

Low trust in institutions and leaders is a consequence of words and actions not matching. However the remedy for lost trust isn’t talking less about values so as not to hold one’s behavior up to scrutiny. It is having the courage — yes, courage again — to give voice to values and give support, as well as draw support from others, in the ongoing process of practicing, modeling and living the values that make the individual, the organization, and society stronger.

Community can be the best re-inforcer of values. And herein lies the rub. Brooks also cites a study by Twenge, Campbell and Gentile that found that between 1960 and 2008, words like “community,” and “common good” receded from use, while terms like “self” and “I come first” increased in use.

The reality is that what we focus on we get more of. “I come first” doesn’t inspire the trust of other stakeholders and calls into question the capacity for long-term sustainability. Leaders making a mid-flight correction to restore trust in their institutions will need courage, one of many words that enrich all of us when practiced and used.

Gael O’Brien May 22, 2013

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien is The Ethics Coach columnist for Entrepreneur Magazine. Gael is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine; her May 2013 column takes on the siren song in “hip” and “edgy” advertising. 

Note: Photograph is of a rock painted by a student at Robert Adams Middle School displayed on the grounds.

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

Posted May 2, 2013 by Gael O'Brien
Categories: Diversity, Ethical Behavior, Ethical Leadership, Influence, Social Conscience, Social Responsibility

Tags: , , , , ,

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

Posted April 25, 2013 by Gael O'Brien
Categories: Diversity, Leadership, Reputation, Tone at the Top, Trust

Tags: , , , , ,

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.”

Sandberg photo.pdf 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

Posted March 15, 2013 by Gael O'Brien
Categories: Culture, Ethical Behavior, Ethical Leadership, Governance, Leadership, Reputation, Transparency, Trust

Tags: , , , , , , ,

photo of strength

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.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 332 other followers