September 8, 2015
Smelt It Dealt It
In turn, the other kids would all chime in: "The person who smelt it, dealt it!"
Might as well push the responsibility where it rightfully belongs--uh, maybe.
This is what kids do--they are not politically correct in the slightest!
Are adults any better really?
I've seen grown men and women start holding their noses and waving their hands in front of their faces when someone is stinking up the local air.
In particular, this happens quite a bit on places like the crowded Metro and elevators...going down.
People are unforgiving when the air is foul.
Personally, I am very sensitive to bad smells and hot air--my A/C is running full blast all around the year...even in Winter, seriously!
When I saw this sign in a storefront window that said, "Free Smells," I thought to myself, gee we got enough smells to last a lifetime, and that's why fresh air and nature is so appealing to the good 'ol olfactory senses.
Free smells...unless it's fresh flowers or some savory dish to eat--you can have it--free or not, I frankly don't give a damn.
My personal belief is that an odor is far more likely to cause you a gag sensation than put a refreshing smile on your ugly face.
Good etiquette, keep your smells to yourself. ;-)
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
February 27, 2015
Reform The Movement
Sheik Ahmend al-Tayeb, a grand imam in Cairo said "corrupt interpretations" of the Koran and of Muhammad was leading to a rise of Middle East-based terrorism.
This to hopefully stem the flow of what is now being reported as 20,000 foreign fighters flocking to join ISIS.
What is amazing here is that good Muslim people are recognizing the problem with radicalization, extremism, and violence and are speaking out.
Yet, many of our own leaders in the Western world still refuse to say the dirty words "Islamic terrorism."
The President saying instead: "No religion is responsible for terrorism--people are responsible for violence and terrorism."
So perhaps, according to this "logic," no movement is responsible for what their people do--only the individuals are?
And therefore, accordingly, the Nazis would not be responsible for the Holocaust, nor America for Slavery, nor Communism for political purges, oppression, and violation of human rights, etc. etc.
...in which case, there would be no apologies, no regrets, no reparations, no museums, no memorials, nothing--because this was just some individuals doing some bad things and those individuals are may no longer even be here with us.
Doesn't this ignore the very basic and fundamental fact that when the masses follow a movement's (genuine or distorted) ideological teachings of hatred, racism, and discrimination, and the people act act nefariously on this, then does not the movement itself hold some responsibility for the murderous and evil actions committed based on their doctrine?
The Sheik who denounced terror and called for changes to the education in the Muslim community is recognizing what apparently many of our own leaders refuse to, which is that they--and we--are responsible for what is taught and tolerated in our communities.
As Peggy Noonan recently wrote, "The reality is that the Islamic State is...very Islamic.
Currently, we are fighting a war on radical Islamic terrorism...whether that terror is committed on Charlie Hebdo, a Jewish grocery store, or the World Trade Centers.
That does not mean that tomorrow, we are not fighting against some other movement's treachery.
This is why good people everywhere must stand up and speak out when they see religions, governments, institutions, or other movements preach and teach lies, hatred, and terror.
Bad (or hijacked good) movements drive bad actors...so we must not only go after the bad guys, but also hold the movements themselves to account.
We must demand that the lies and distortions be called out for what they are and that truth and virtue be held up in its place. ;-)
(Source Photo: here with attribution to Front Page Magazine)
Reform The Movement
October 18, 2014
Welcome Ebola To America!
Moreover, the United Nations has warned that if Ebola is not controlled within the next 60 days, "the world faces an 'unprecedented situation' for which there is no plan."
But by the time, we get our political will and act together, who knows...
What isn't helping are publications like Bloomberg Businessweek, with another classic asinine article this time by Charles Kenny who writes--get this--that "A Travel Ban Is a Terrible Idea."
While Kenny acknowledges "Travel restrictions have a long history as a tool against spreading infection" dating back already to the Middle Ages, Kenny is concerned about the "trade-offs" of quarantining the source countries--"because the benefits of contact outweigh the risks"--i.e. "People want to travel to see family and friends, visits places, work, or invest."
Well Mr. Kenny, how about that people want to live and not die because of the irresponsible spread of this deadly virus? Two-thirds of the public, as well as many in Congress, and the media have already called for a common sense temporary travel ban.
Kenny then goes on to exaggerate and talk about how laughable it is that we would "completely seal off the U.S. from the rest of the world" even though what we are talking about are just the countries where this deadly infection is currently raging.
Further, Kenny is concerned not about containing the disease and protecting the more than 300,000,000 people in this country, but about the possibility that a ban on commercial flights "will deter people from volunteering to work in the region"--here again, Kenny ignores that specialized, trained people from the military, World Health Organization, Doctors Without Borders, and more are already being deployed--although too little too late.
Incredibly, Kenny even compares Ebola to the common flu, and intimates that since we don't quarantine for the seasonal flu, why should we do it for Ebola--uh, Mr. Kenny have you heard that Ebola has a 70% mortality rate!
Finally, Kenny says in his defeatist way, "We live in a global disease pool. In the end, once a disease begins to spread, there's no escaping an infection."
Hello Mr. Kenny, we have a responsibility to prevent and protect our people--there is no place for your throwing in the towel on all of us--what a shame that Bloomberg makes this dangerous rhetoric the Opening Remarks for their magazine.
There is long established protocol of quarantine to stop the spread of infection--not that it would necessarily be 100% successful, but at least it would help contain and control the spread from getting worse, and we would learn to improve as we go along, and live to fight and save more lives now and in the future.
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Welcome Ebola To America!
December 31, 2013
Unjust Justice
"It's not your job to save the world. Do law, leave justice to Clint Eastwood."
What a notion he has--that it is not a judges job to mete out justice--how (oxy)moronic!
Instead, the judge says that is for vigilantes like Clint Eastwood's role in Dirty Harry (or perhaps Charles Bronson in Death Wish).
While I understand that the law is the law, you would think that a judge's role is to not only ensure that it is applied evenly, but also that it is meted out fairly.
As it says in the Torah/Bible (Deuteronomy 16:20), "Justice, Justice shall you pursue."
It is not enough for the "justice system" to enforce laws brainlessly, but the role of the judicial branch is to interrupt the law so that justice results.
What a contrast to even the bumbling inspector, Clouseau, in the movie, The Pink Panther, who knows "Yuri, the trainer who trains," but some of our judges don't seem to know that they are judges who sit in judgement.
So much for "jurisprudence"--but without any prudence!
Doing law, without pursuing justice is like dehydrated water in this picture--empty and good for nothing. ;-)
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Unjust Justice
October 13, 2013
Shortsighted Government Is Selfish Politics
So I am at the pool today in Maryland.
This old man--looks about 100, yes really!--comes up to me and starts a conversation.
He says, you know what--my friend in California is 99-years old and he just got his driver's license renewed--for 5 years!
Imagine that--can the State of California with confidence really issue a 5-year driver's license to someone at that age and believe that both the drivers' safety and public safety is provided for?
Yes, the problems at the Federal government level are ginormous--the national debt, the level of social entitlements, the "true" unemployment rate, the poverty level, our failing healthcare system, and more.
Still we cannot forget that some of the most important services that citizens get are at the State and Local levels of government--police, fire & rescue, transportation, community development, family planning, and more.
For government to function effectively--we need all levels to act rationally, responsibly, and with care for the people in mind--both short-term and long-term.
Issuing 5-year driver's license to 99-year old individuals can have a devastating impact on someone family if that person loses control of their vehicle due to their physical or mental condition.
Similarly, issuing social entitlements (and they may indeed be needed) without a realistic plan for funding the system is irresponsible and can have a catastrophic impact to families around the nation when the system comes up short.
Government has to run with common sense--and stop setting up rules that are shortsighted and blind to the bigger picture.
Yes, people deserve to drive and to have medical care and so forth, but politicians should set up these systems, so that the people are really served, and not just their political agendas. ;-)
(Source Video: Michelle Blumenthal)
Shortsighted Government Is Selfish Politics
May 16, 2013
So Sorry, Charlie
These days, from my perspective, people often do not take responsibility when they mess up and arrogantly they can't bring themselves to just say, "I'm sorry"--it was my responsibility, I messed up, and I am committed to doing better in the future.
It's really not so hard to say sorry, if you let your ego go. Most often, from what I've seen, unless the boss, spouse, or friend is just a jerk, saying sorry goes a long way to making things right--it shows you care about the relationship, your human and fallible (like the rest of us) and you are able to introspect, self-help, and learn from mistakes.
In contrast, Bloomberg BusinessWeek (18 April 2013) says sillily, "Don't Apologize"--that refusing to apologize makes a person feel better about themselves, more powerful, and less of a victim.
Certainly, we don't want to apologize for things we didn't do, when we really don't mean it, or to give someone on a pure power binge the satisfaction of making us beg--in those cases, we should be truthful and respectful and set the record straight. We should also, make it clear that we will not be victimized by anyone, at anytime.
But when we are wrong--and it's not easy for everyone to recognize or admit it--just say so. It won't kill you and you'll usually see the other person lighten up on the punishing diatribe and maybe even admit their part in it or the stupid things they may have done at other times.
No one is so perfect--despite some very large egos out there. And the bigger the ego, the bigger the jerk. The humbler the person, the nicer and more workable they are.
Don't apologize for things you didn't do or to satisfy someone's bullying, but do apologize when you could've done better and you are committed to improving yourself and building the relationship.
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
So Sorry, Charlie
March 4, 2013
Seasaw, Yeah It's For Kids
There is an interesting new crowdsourcing application called Seesaw.
And like a seesaw goes up and down, you can take a picture and crowdsource decisions--thumbs up or down for what you should do.
Food, clothes, movies, more--I could imagine people even going so far as to use this for dating--Go out with them or not? Keep 'em or dump 'em?
While the possibility of having others chime in on your everyday life decisions is somewhat intriguing, social and fun...it also seems a little shallow and superficial.
Do you really need to ask your friends about everything you do or can you make simple day-to-day decisions yourself?
And when it comes to big decisions, perhaps you need more than a picture with a thumbs up or down to give the decision context, evaluate pros and cons, think through complex issues, and make a truly thoughtful decision--perhaps some genuine dialogue would be helpful here?
Finally, many decisions in life come at the spur of a moment--should I or shouldn't I--and you don't have the benefit of saying hold on "let me take a picture and get some of my friends opinions on this"--life waits for no one and timing is often everything!
It is good to get other people's opinions (i.e. the proverbial "second opinion") as well as to do what my father used to tell me which is to "sleep on it," because things look different over night and in the morning.
But while you should consider what others think--in a meaningful way--in the end, you need to trust your inner self and take responsibility for your own decisions. ;-)
Seasaw, Yeah It's For Kids
October 12, 2012
Then Came The Baby In The Baby Carriage
A baby carriage in the middle of this busy driveway.
And yes, there is a baby in it!
The lady who I assume was the mother was potchkeying around in her car.
Yes, I understand--it's not easy to get the baby in the babyseat, if that's what she was about to do.
But that doesn't mean you leave a baby stroller out there in the middle of the road like that.
And with a car turning down the way on top of it.
People are unbelievable--and the poor children suffer for the mistakes of the elders.
First comes loves, then comes marriage, then comes a baby endangered in the baby carriage--scary.
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Then Came The Baby In The Baby Carriage
September 14, 2012
Following The Guy In Front Of You Over A Cliff
After seeing holocaust survivors with numbers tattooed on their arms from the horrors of the concentation camps, Chaleff asks "How does this happen? How do people follow murderous leaders?"
In response Chaleff comes up with the five dimensions to follow courageously:
- Courage to assume responsibility--don't expect your leader to provide for you, but you act for the common purpose that you both serve. (as John F. Kennedy said: "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.")
- Courage to serve--recognize the tough job of leadership and help to unburden and support the leader so he/she can be successful.
- Courage to participate in transformation--become full participants in the change and transformation process; ask what you can do differently to improve.
- Courage to constructively question and challenge--when policies and behaviors are counterproductive, step up and voice discomfort and objection.
- Courage to take moral action--in rare, but needed circumstances, you must be willing to dissent, leave, or refuse to obey a direct order when it is unethical or illegal.
I greatly appreciate Charleff speaking out and teaching others to do so and calling for all to "act as principled persons with integrity."
Charleff see leaders and followers less in the traditional hierarchical model and more as partners in achieving a common purpose--and this flattening of the hierarchy enables followers to question, challenge, and dissent when the boundaries of integrity are violated.
While I too believe we must serve courageously and not just follow blindly--as one of my teachers used to say, "if the car in front of you drives off a cliff, are you just going to follow him?"--I am not sure that Chaleff fully addresses the challenges and complexity in what it means to "step out."
While we may like to envision a flat organization structure, the reality in most organizations is that there is a clear hierarchy and as they say, "the nail that stands out, gets hammered down"--it is not easy to challenge authority, even though it can, at rare times, be necessary.
Finally, while Charleff focuses primarily on speaking up when there is a moral issue at hand, I think it is important to also be forthright in everyday issues and challenges that we confront.
Being good at what we do means that you don't just participate in leaderthink or groupthink, but you think on your own and share those thoughts earnestly.
However, once the decision is made--as long as and only when it is moral--then you must serve and support that decision and help make it as successful as possible.
Leaders and followers are a team and that means having the courage to fully participate and having the humility to respect chain of command and serve a noble mission, appropriately.
Following The Guy In Front Of You Over A Cliff
February 3, 2012
Online Presence, Your Calling Card
Whether or not their apprehensions about their privacy being compromised is justified or whether they feel that "it's simply a waste of time" or that they "just don't get it," the impetus for us to all establish and nurture our online presence is getting more important than ever.
In the competition for the best jobs, schools, even mates, and other opportunities, our online credentials are becoming key.
We've heard previously about jobs checking candidates backgrounds on the Internet and even bypassing candidates or even firing employees for their activities online.
Numerous examples of people badmouthing their companies or bosses have been profiled in the media and even some politicians have been forced out of office--remember "Weinergate" not too long ago?
Now, not only can negative activities online get you in trouble, but positive presence and contributions can get you ahead.
The Wall Street Journal (24 January 2012) reports in an article titled No More Resumes, Say Some Firms that companies are not only checking up on people online, but they are actually asking "applicants to send links representing their web presence" in lieu of resumes altogether.
What are they looking for:
- Twitter Accounts
- Blogs
- Short Videos
- Online Surveys/Challenges
The idea is that you can learn a lot more about someone--how they think and what they are like--from their history online, then from a resume snapshot.
Of course, many companies still rely on the resume to screen applicants, but even then LinkedIn with over 135 million members is sometimes the first stop for recruiters looking for applicants.
Is everything you do and say online appropriate or "fair game" for people screening or is this going over some sacred line that says that we all have professional lives and personal lives and what we do "when we're off the clock" (as long as your not breaking any laws or doing something unethical) is no one's darn business.
The problem is that when you post something online--publicly--for the world to see, can you really blame someone for looking?
In the end, we have to be responsible for what we disclose about ourselves and demonstrate prudence, maturity, respect, and diplomacy, perhaps that itself is a valid area for others to take into account when they are making judgments about us.
When it comes to children--parents-beware; the Internet has a long memory and Facebook now has a "timeline", so don't assume everyone will be as understanding or forgiving for "letting kids be kids."
One last thought, even if we are responsible online, what happens when others such as hackers, identity thieves, slanderers, those with grudges, and others--mess with your online identity--can you ever really be secure?
Being online is no longer an option, but it is certainly a double-edged sword.
(Source Photo: here; Image credit to L Hollis Photography)
Online Presence, Your Calling Card
December 31, 2011
The Not So Candid Camera
The Not So Candid Camera
August 13, 2011
Attacked And Then Some
Attacked And Then Some
August 6, 2011
DRI or DOA
DRI or DOA
June 11, 2011
The Internet: A Right and a Responsibility
Good Online is reporting (10 June 2011) that the “U.N. Declares Internet Access a Human Right.”
According to the U.N. report, “The Internet has become a key means by which individuals exercise their right to freedom of expression.”
But as Good points out, this is not just a “third-world concern,” since even in America those without high-speed access cannot adequately perform certain functions “and that surely this affects their ability to get informed, educated, and employed.”
The U.N. is pushing for more protections for people to “assert themselves freely online,” but Good proposes that Internet access means more than just freedom of expression, but also the right to more public Wi-Fi access, better access to technology in libraries and I would assume in schools as well.
Interestingly enough, just on Thursday, Mayor Bloomberg of NYC and AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson announced that as part of NYC’s “Road Map for the Digital City,” they were launching a five-year initiative for free Wi-Fi service at 20 NYC parks—this is seen as a “critical developmental tool” for children, families, and communities.
The Internet stands alone as a technology that is now a “human right.” Radios, televisions, and telephones—none of these have that status. Yes, we have freedom of speech, but the technologies that enable them are not seen as a human right.
Similarly, access to the printing press (i.e. the technology for printing) itself is not a human right—rather, freedom of press (i.e. expression through print) is.
Do we not communicate and express ourselves over radio, TV, telephone, and other technologies as we do over the Internet? Do we not get information from them and through them? Do we not reach out with them to others both nationally and globally as we do over Net?
The answer to all of these is of course, we do.
So what is distinct about the Internet that the mere access to it is declared a human right?
I believe it is the fact that the Internet is the first technology whose very access enables the protection of all the other human rights, since it empowers EVERYONE to hear and speak from and to the masses about what is going in—whether in the tumultuous streets of the Arab Spring to the darkest prisons silencing political dissent.
While radio and television, in their time, were important in getting information and entertainment, but they were essentially unidirectional modes of communication and these can be manipulated by the powers that be. Similarly, the telephone while important to bridging communications over vast distances was for the most part constrained between two or at most a few individuals conversing. And publishing was limited to the realm of the professionals with printing presses.
In contrast, the Internet enables each person to become their own TV producer (think YouTube), radio announcer (think iTunes), telephone operator (think Skype) or publisher (think websites, blogs, wikis, etc.).
The Internet has put tremendous power into the hands of every individual. This is now a declared right. With that right, there is a tremendous responsibility to share information and collaborate with others for the benefit of all.
Of course, as a powerful tool of expression, the Internet can also be used malevolently to express hatred, racism, bigotry, etc. and to malign other people, their thoughts or opinions. Of course, it can also be used to steal, spy, hack, and otherwise disrupt normal civilization.
So we also all have the responsibility to behave appropriately, fairly, and with dignity to each other on the Internet.
While I applaud the U.N. for declaring the Internet a human right, I would like to see this expanded to include both a right and responsibility—this to me would be more balanced and beneficial to building not only access, but also giving and tolerance.
(Photo Source: WorldVisionReport.org)
The Internet: A Right and a Responsibility
April 22, 2011
Never Lose Faith; Never Give Up
Never Lose Faith; Never Give Up
April 5, 2011
Beyond The Blame Game
To be honest, we all make mistakes.
In fact, I would worry about someone who seems so perfect on the outside--because I would imagine that they are likely or probably a powder keg, ready to blow on the inside (ever hear of someone "going postal" or the star who seems to have it all--looks, fame and fortune--and then they overdose or drive off a cliff or something?)
No one has it all. No one is perfect. We are all human.
It's not about blame. It is about accountability and responsibility--making things right where we can.
Every day we learn and grow--that is our test and our trust.
(Cartoon Credit: Tandberg)
Beyond The Blame Game
February 27, 2011
A Shift in Time
A Shift in Time
May 1, 2010
Managing with Integrity
Most professionals know instinctively that they should act with integrity, if only to avoid getting caught. Yet, of course, not everyone does.
Whether it’s Bernie Madoff ripping off investors to the tune of $50 billion or the store cashier helping themselves to $5 from the register, many people make poor ethical decisions.
Given human nature being the way it is, it’s not surprising when people are tempted to do bad things. What is a little harder to understand is when managers, who may have to answer for the conduct of others, look away when they see it happening.
This is the subject of an article in Harvard Business Review (March 2010) called “Keeping Your Colleagues Honest.” According to the article, here are the four “classic rationalizations” that keep managers silent in the face of wrongdoing:
- “It’s standard practice”—or everyone was doing it and so that makes it okay.
- “It’s not a big deal”—some people state it this way, “no harm, no foul.”
- “It’s not my responsibility”—or as the Bible put it, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
- “I want to be loyal”—or don’t be a Benedict Arnold.
HBR gives some suggestions for handling ethical dilemmas in the organization:
- “Recognize that this is part of your job”—“people tend to view ethical conflict as aberrations…[but] that’s just not true….[it’s] a regular part of professional life.”
- “Make long-term risks more concrete”—all too often people get caught up in the moment and want or feel they need to take the easy way out. So a good strategy for helping people to behave more ethically involves pointing out the risks and possible long-term consequences of the behavior.
- “Challenge the rationalizations”—For example: “if this is standard practice, why is there a policy against it? Or if it is expected, are we comfortable being public about it?”
- “Present an alternative”—Some mistakenly believe that ethical choices are not rewarded and are simply “naïve idealism,” and that we “have no choice” sometimes in doing the wrong thing. However, great managers recognize that there is always a choice.
There is no doubt that it is hard for managers to have to stand up for what’s right. There is always organizational pressure to get along, go along, and make things happen.
But in the end, we are accountable for our choices, whether we feel comfortable about it or not and whether they involve action or passivity.
In my experience, most people have a conscience and will try to do what is right. However, it is only a very few who have the self-confidence, the character, and the fortitude to stand up and follow their conscience even when it’s not easy, not convenient, not cheap, not fun, not popular, not beneficial in the short-term or even the long. (And there is not a clear playbook for every situation.)
I believe that making tough choices is our test and our trust in life, to do what we believe is right and ethical. It’s not only our greatest professional challenge but also our greatest personal one, and we cannot rationalize it away.
Managing with Integrity
February 27, 2010
Why Reputation Is The Foundation For Innovation
Toyota is a technology company with some of the most high-tech and “green” cars on the planet. But right now Totoya’s leaders seem to lack integrity, and they haven’t proactively handled the current crisis. As a result, everything they have built is in danger.
Too often, IT leaders think that their technical competency is sufficient. However, these days it takes far more to succeed. Of course, profitability is a key measure of achievement and sustainability. But if basic integrity, accountability, and open and skillful communication are absent, then no amount of innovation in the world can save you.
Looking back, no one would have thought that Toyota would go down in a flaming debacle of credibility lost. For years, Toyota ate the lunch of the largest American car manufacturers—and two of the three were driven to bankruptcy just last year. Moreover, they had a great reputation built on quality – and that rocketed Toyota to be the #1 car company in the world.
A reputation for quality gave Toyota a significant edge among potential buyers. Purchasing a Toyota meant investing in a car that would last years and years without defect or trouble—it was an investment in reliability and it was well worth the extra expense. Other car companies were discounting and incenting sales with low or zero interest rates, cash back, and extended warranties, and so on. But Toyota held firm and at times their cars even sold for above sticker price. In short, their brand elicited a price premium. Toyota had credibility and that credibility translated into an incredibly successful company.
Now Toyota has suffered a serious setback by failing to disclose and fix brake problems so serious that they have allegedly resulted in loss of life. Just today, the Boston Globe reports that Toyota has been sued in Boston by an individual who alleges that “unintended acceleration (of his Toyota vehicle) caused a single-car crash that killed his wife and left him seriously injured.” The Globe goes on to report that “dozens of people reportedly have been killed in accidents involving unwanted acceleration.”
While nothing is perfect, not even Toyota engineering, in my opinion the key to recovering from mistakes is to be honest, admit them, be accountable, and take immediate action to rectify. These are critical leadership must do’s! Had Toyota taken responsibility in those ways, I believe their reputation would have been enhanced rather than grossly tarnished as it is now, because ultimately people respect integrity above all else, and they will forgive mistakes when they are honest mistakes and quickly rectified.
Unfortunately, this has not occurred with Toyota, and the brake problems appear to be mistakes that were known and then not rectified—essentially, Toyota’s transgression may have been one of commission rather than simply omission. For example, this past week, the CEO of Toyota, Akio Toyoda, testified before Congress that “we didn’t listen as carefully as we should—or respond as quickly as we must—to our customer’s concerns.” However, in reality, company executives not only didn’t respond, but also actually apparently stalled a response and celebrated their success in limiting recalls in recent years. As Congressman Edolphus Towns, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, stated: “Toyota's own internal documents indicate that a premium was placed on delaying or closing NHTSA investigations, delaying new safety rules and blocking the discovery of safety defects.” (Bloomberg News via the Austin American Statesman)
In other words, Toyota strayed from its promise to customers to put safety center stage. Rather, profit took over and became the benchmark of success.
Even the company’s own managers acknowledge the deep wound that this scandal has inflicted on the company, and have doubts about its leadership. According to the Wall Street Journal, a midlevel manager stated, “Mr. Toyoda cannot spell out how he plans to alleviate consumer worries….it is a recall after another, and every time Mr. Toyoda utters the phrase ‘customer first,’ it has the opposite effect. His words sound just hollow.’” Said another, “The only way we find out anything about the crisis is through the media….Does Mr. Toyoda have the ability to lead? That’s on every employee’s mind.”
Indeed, the Journal echoes these sentiments, noting that under Toyoda’s leadership, there was a focus on “getting the company back to profitability, after the company last year suffered it first loss in 70 years.” In other words, in an attempt to “reinstate frugality,” it appears that CEO Toyoda went too far and skimped on quality—becoming, as the saying goes, “penny wise and dollar foolish.” We will see if this debacle costs Toyota market share and hurts the bottom line over the intermediate to longer-term.
In recent times, we have seen a shift away from quality and credibility in favor of a fast, cheap buck in many sectors of the economy. For example, I have heard that some homebuyers actually prefer hundred-year-old homes to new construction due to their perception that the quality was better back then and that builders take shortcuts now. But somehow Toyota always stood out as a bulwark against this trend. It is therefore deeply disappointing to see that even they succumbed. While the company has a long road ahead to reestablish their credibility and rebuild their brand, I, for one, sincerely hope that they rediscover their roots and “do the right thing.”
Why Reputation Is The Foundation For Innovation
February 10, 2010
Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t
Frequently employees face double-bind message in the workplace and these not only impair morale, but also can result in poor decision-making.
One example has to do with whether we should apply tried and true, best practices or be creative and innovative. This manifests when employees bring innovative approaches to the table to solve problems are told, “there’s no reason to recreate the wheel on this.” And then when the employees take the opposing track and try to bring established best practices to bear on problems, they are told disparagingly “ah, that’s just a cookie cutter approach.”
Another example has to do with when and how much to analyze and when to decide, such that when employees are evaluating solutions and they hustle to get a proposal on the table, only to be told they haven’t done enough work or its superficial and they need to go back, “do due diligence, and conduct a more thorough evaluation.” Then when the employees go back to conduct a thorough analysis of alternatives, business case, concept of operations and so on, only to be told, “what is taking you so long? You’re just getting bogged down in analysis paralysis—move on!”
I am sure there are many more examples of this where employees feel like they are in a catch 22, between a rock and a hard place, damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The point is that creating contradictions, throwing nifty clichés at employees, and using that to win points or get your way in the decision process, hurts the organization and the employees that work there.
What the organization needs is not arbitrary decision-making and double-bind messages that shut employees down. Rather, organizations need clearly defined, authoritative, and accountable governance structure, policy, process and roles and responsibilities that open it up to healthy and informed debate and timely decisions. When everyone is working off of the “same sheet of music” and they know what is professionally expected and appropriate to the decision-making process, then using clichés arbitrarily and manipulating the decision-process no longer has a place or is organizationally acceptable.
We can’t rush through decisions just to get what we want, and we can’t bog down decisions with obstacles, just because we’re looking for a different answer.
Sound governance will help resolve this, but also necessary is a leadership committed to changing the game from the traditional power politics and subjective management whim to an organization driven by integrity, truth, and genuine progress based on objective facts, figures, and reason. Of course, changing an organization is not easy and doesn’t happen overnight, but think how proud we can be of our organizations that make this leap to well-founded governance.
Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t