Archive for the ‘Reputation’ category

The Week in Ethics: Wells Fargo’s Next Move? 10 Suggestions

September 22, 2016

Update: See my 12/10/16 Business Ethics column on Where Wells Fargo Goes From Here .

Update: In October 2016 Timothy Sloan replaced Chairman/CEO John Stumpf, becoming CEO and President. The chairman role was split and given to independent lead director Stephen Sanger.

Update: September 27, 2016: Wells Fargo Independent directors issued a statement  they will lead an investigation into “the bank’s retail sales practices and related matters” with the Board’s HR Committee and independent counsel. Chairman/CEO John Stumpf to forfeit $41 million unvested equity awards and “will forgo salary during the investigation.” The U.S. House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on bank’s “unauthorized customer accounts” on 12/29/16.

How will Wells Fargo resolve the ethical and culture issues it faces? And, how will it move beyond a poor showing at the Senate Banking Committee hearing and start to rebuild trust? First some background. Then 10 suggestions.

The best thing a CEO with strong convictions about the “rightness” of his/her own position can do when embroiled in a crisis is to spend time with trusted sources (inside or outside their company) who see things very differently. Being open to these viewpoints and questions iphone-pictures2-222and multiple perspectives raised make it harder for  CEOs to stay wedded to their position. However, once a CEO is under fire the temptation to stick with like-minded people can increase. What’s lost then is stimulation to think deeply about different aspects of an issue to gain new insights and awareness that enable developing alternatives legitimately aligned with values. Being stuck in “rightness” can lead to error blindness, a term popularized by Kathryn Schulz  who points out, “Trusting too much in feeling you are on the right side of anything is dangerous.”

It can lead to decisions that put a CEO on the defensive in front of a U.S. Senate hearing, as John Stumpf Chairman and CEO of Wells Fargo experienced September 20, 2016 testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs.

Stumpf was questioned about the bank’s unauthorized accounts and allegations of a pressure-cooker sales culture which became public in 2013 (Los Angeles Times story) and continued. Wells Fargo has fired 5,300 employees, paid a fine, faces an investigation into its sales practices by New York and California federal prosecutors and can anticipate an upcoming hearing by the U.S. House Financial Services Committee in addition to follow up from the Senate Banking Committee. Earlier this month The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a consent order outlining findings of the bank’s “improper sales practices”from 2011 to 2016.

A few days before the Senate hearing Stumpf, in an interview, disputed Wells Fargo has a culture problem. He maintained that stance with Senate committee members, while indicating changes the Bank planned to make. However, the bipartisan committee was united in criticism that Stumpf, the Board and senior leadership hadn’t gone far enough, fast enough and weren’t showing accountability. From the Republican Committee chair to Democratic challengers, Senators didn’t buy that the bank’s culture isn’t an issue.

Where does this leave Wells Fargo? Anyone who has been through corporate crises — as I and many others have — knows that criticism from outsiders is hard to take. However, there are huge pitfalls if Mr. Stumpf stays locked in the “rightness”of his position (in spite of his 30 plus years service at Wells Fargo, presiding over several of its acquisitions and knowing his industry and company better than outsiders).

His performance at the Senate hearing this week indicates his time has been spent with legal and public relations teams and like-minded insiders. Getting out of a crisis, turning around a culture and re-earning political and public trust, doesn’t happen by working harder with the same mindset. (The much touted definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.)

I’ve limited myself to 10 suggestions for Wells Fargo to support the start of a turnaround:

  1. The board should appoint a new chairman — an independent director — separating the role from the CEO for many reasons including signaling stronger board governance.
  2. The board should immediately decide about claw backs related to compensation of former head of community banking Carrie Tolstedt, Stumpf and any others. As part of re-earning trust, all their actions should be transparent and well communicated.
  3. The board should direct Stumpf and his team to meet with Wells Fargo’s ethics and compliance teams and risk officers to discuss/evaluate ethics, compliance and risk operations for strengths, weaknesses and safeguards to better integrate sales and all business strategies with corporate values and prepare a report for the board.
  4. The compliance and ethics leaders (and C-suite leader to whom they ultimately report) should initiate meetings with leaders of the Ethics & Compliance Initiative and the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics to address best practices, implementation challenges and examples where ethics and compliance leaders weigh in on business strategy discussions in sales and all areas.
  5. The board and senior management should identify outside experts to discuss how to  realign authentically culture around values. A place to start is the nearby Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.
  6. Stumpf and his management team should become acquainted with Margaret Wheatley’s concept of self seal (the rightness of one’s position), Kathryn Schulz’ TED Talk (error blindness) and Margaret Heffernan’s  Willful Blindness for starters. These are lenses that encourage conscious and unconscious unethical behavior.
  7.  A cross-functional team of senior leaders with ethics and compliance leaders should review the company’s five primary values; for each, identify five or six specific expected behaviors to be incorporated into company policy and discussed in ethics training and performance reviews. Currently, the values are too abstract.
  8. Under the value “Ethics” the company says “We strive to be recognized by our stakeholders as setting the standard among the world’s great companies for integrity and principled performance. “This should become a business objective with Board and CEO focus to keep this commitment at the center of the turnaround’s activities.
  9. At the upcoming House Financial Services Committee hearing, Stumpf and those testifying can start rebuilding trust by being fully prepared to answer questions directly and completely, having with them information relevant to committee questions. Stumpf should also make himself available to Senate Banking Committee leadership to make sure information provided since that hearing addressed open questions.
  10. Trust is a relationship where “integrity” and “principled performance” are realities, not marketing slogans. In relationships with employees, customers, customers affected by unethical actions, employees pressured by aggressive sales tactics, Wells Fargo leaders have to admit what went wrong and make systemic changes. A start is to amend the vision statement that says “We want to satisfy our customers’ financial needs and help them succeed financially” and add “in ways that build lasting relationships of trust and integrity.”The Week in EthicsGael O’Brien, September 22, 2016Gael O’Brien is The Ethics Coach columnist  for Entrepreneur Magazine. She is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine where her September column is “One man’s Leadership Toward a Goal: ‘The Great Mission of Business Ethics.'”

Please follow The Week in Ethics FB page with ongoing updates of short items in the news with ethical implications.

 

 

 

 

The Week in Ethics: The Way Forward from Public Shaming

July 15, 2015

iPhone April 11, 2014 272 Students in a middle school painted words important to them on rocks placed under a tree. “Patience,” “courage,” “strength,” and “peace” were scattered under the limbs. However the lineup of a yellow heart, “tolerance” and “healing” held my eye during a walk in 2013; they were an antidote to the lack of humanity words as weapons cause.

I thought of those rocks this week after reading So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, a new book by journalist Jon Ronson. He recounts recent examples of how far an online posse of righteous shamers can go condemning others’ ethical failings, judgment errors or offensive attempts at humor. Among the stories of social media shaming that Ronson includes are journalist Jonah Lehrer’s plagiarism, the racist-interpreted “joke” tweet of PR executive Justine Sacco and the obscene gesture in a photograph in Arlington National Cemetery Lindsey Stone posted of herself on Facebook.

Social media has a piranha capacity to feed off self-sabotage. Rationally, authors know plagiarism is an ethical time bomb, just as news anchors understand lying and distorting facts destroy credibility (the problems of Brian Williams erupted after the book was written). And no one should be surprised that Twitter and Facebook accounts don’t guarantee quiet repositories for acting out unfiltered attempts at humor.

However, not understanding the consequences of enraged social media is to be in denial over the potential consequences of losses — in jobs, trust, reputation, safety (as attacks cut more deeply personal) and even one’s life. It is a double-sided ignorance: Not seeing the piranha waits or recognizing if you and the piranha have become one.

Ronson, writing about the impact of the public shaming on Lehrer, explained:

“People were very keen to imagine Jonah as shameless, as lacking in that quality, like he was something not quite human that had adopted human form. I suppose it’s no surprise we feel the need to dehumanize the people we hurt — before, during, or after the hurting occurs….In psychology it’s known as cognitive dissonance. It’s the idea that it feels stressful and painful for us to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time (like the idea that we’re kind people and the idea that we’ve just destroyed someone.)”

Ultimately, shaming, Ronson writes, dehumanizes the onlooker as well as the person being shamed.

Shamers get trapped in feedback reinforcement says documentary filmmaker Adam Curtis , whom Ronson quotes. That process, Curtis points out: “… locks people off in the world they started with and prevents them from finding out anything different.”

A world of instant reaction means what we put out on social media stands alone without context or qualification. And rather than our comments accepted as random orphans of thought by people who know us and make allowances, strangers not in our circle can weigh in. To them, whatever we say or do is seen as a representation of who we are. It creates an accountability we dodge at our peril. Ideally, knowing this allows us to operate with more attention to our emotional intelligence — particularly our self-awareness, self-regulation and empathy.

As for viewers, instant reaction triggers instant judgments, often building off the tone of comments that have gone before. If reaction becomes outrage, are we even aware when it crosses over into shaming, bullying, threatening and deconstructing… fueled by assuming the other person “deserves” whatever we volley at them from behind the net of our anonymity? The irony is that our own thoughtlessness, insensitivity and capacity to injure can occur with the greatest frequency when we are convinced of the rightness of our own point of view.

In Dignity: Its Essential Role in Resolving Conflict, author Donna Hicks writes that while people have to earn respect through behaviors and actions, “dignity is a birthright” that everyone deserves. “Treating people badly because they have done something wrong only perpetuates the cycle of indignity,”she writes. “What is worse,” she continues, “we violate our own dignity in the process. Others’ bad behavior doesn’t give us license to treat them badly in return.”

“Dignity” — honoring one’s own and others –an enduring antidote to support diversity of opinion and our humanity.

The Week in Ethics

Gael O’Brien, July 15, 2015

Gael O’Brien is The Ethics Coach columnist for Entrepreneur Magazine. She is also a columnist for Business Ethics Magazine where her July column is “Why More Companies Are Speaking Out on Social Issues.”

 

 

 

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

June 18, 2013

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: Abramson, Mayer and the Road Ahead for Women Leaders

April 25, 2013

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

March 15, 2013

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.