"Ooops", "I didn't know", "I'm sorry" and other unacceptable excuses

The media is fraught this week with "hand caught in the cookie jar" tales. Oh, of course, the responses try to deflect responsibility from the individuals involved, but let's be real -- they only care because they've been caught.

First, the Toronto District Catholic School Board (TDCSB) trustees. All of a sudden they seem to have a "hallelujah" moment wherein they declare that they will give away all the perks, which they shouldn't have had in the first place and which were against all rules and common sense. They believe that this will help restore trust in their ability to perform their functions!!! Give me a break -- any other thief repenting might get a few years less in jail -- but quite honestly -- their actions when they felt they were not being watched give the true picture of what they are -- pigs lined up to at the public trough. Not only should they all be dismissed from their posts, but there needs to be ramifications to their actions which border on criminal. Of course it begs the question -- who is monitoring the school board activities in general and how many other of these abuses are going on?

Then there is Gordon Eckstein from Livent who has is trying to save his own skin by being a defense witness against Garth Drabinsky and Myron Gotleib. Eckstein -- oh yes he repents -- but he was after all "only following orders!". How often have we heard this one? Ok folk say oh it's the Nuremberg defense -- but let's face it -- this has been used over and over again it various corporate corridors -- and of course he was only following orders -- and he didn't personally benefit from it? The following orders defense might even be acceptable if you believe that by not doing something you or someone else will be killed, maimed etc. But in this case -- what would have happened to good old Gordon -- Oh my gawd -- he would have possibly lost his job and worse -- lost a significant amount of his probably pumped up salary -- well that's a good enough reason isn't it to do something criminal isn't it????

Siemens executives are on trial for authorizing bribes to various countries to obtain business.
Of course -- they were probably just looking out for the greater good weren't they? Or again -- just for their self-interest??

Recently, I was presenting on leadership to a large group of procurement professionals and during that presentation the issue of ethics and integrity arose. What was interesting in this discussion that a number of folk noted that their corporations had a "zero tolerance" for taking gifts, lunches etc. However in the same breath -- all of these individuals noted that "zero tolerance" was a moving target and the higher you went up the corporate food chain -- the more tolerant accepting gifts, tickets and invitations to lunch and dinners became.

So that begs the question -- does zero tolerance mean that if you are a zero in the corporate hierarchy -- we will have no tolerance?

Why can't corporations have an Auditor General?

Recently Sheila Fraser came out with another one of her "take no prisoners" Auditor General Report. It is always amazing the shenanigans that go on that makes you wonder "Who is actually watching the hen house?"

I know corporations have annual reports that are fully audited, and there are requirements from a SOX perspective to keep things on the up and up. But anyone who has worked in a corporation has seen many different rules for many different people. And when you sit in the Procurement chair and observe some of the ridiculous and unnecessary wastage -- well let's just say that it's a good thing that blood pressure medication exists.

We all know that there could be a multitude of things that could occur that could enhance processes, create efficiencies and of course provide significant savings. Yet what happens is the extreme bad or just dumb practices are allowed to go on and on -- because sometimes organizations consider "those folk in Procurement" to be akin to Chicken Little. The reality is that we all have flat foreheads from banging our head against the wall so often with limited success.

Imagine if corporations would have someone in place like a Sheila Fraser or Andre Marin, who answered to the shareholders and did not have to massage or downplay the message. What effect do you think this would have on corporations.

I believe that you have one of these "What were you thinking or were you?"
reports and then the roaches would go scurrying for cover saying "not me; not me" and perhaps think twice about acting in an inappropriate way....well at least temporarily -- because as we know, Sheila Fraser will always have a job, because just when the light is shone on one travesty, some "untouchable" (or so he/she thinks) does something again that makes you wonder if they were truly seeking their 15 minutes of infamy.

The Power of Why?

In a recent article in The Globe and Mail, George Stalk a Sr. VP from the Boston Consulting Group, writes about the power of Why?

So why is Why so powerful? It is what enables us to understand the world and inevitably identify route causes of issues and problems. Without the answer to Why? we cannot hope to discover the How's, When's, Where and What's.

But as Stalk points out, too often people stop the questioning because the norm is to accept and move on, to fix what' s obvious and not spend too much time on delving too deeply. Stalk quotes an interesting example identifying the risk associate with defying the conventional norm:

" But the risks of asking “why” are real. The “Lord” in his fiefdom can inflict great pain on the questioner. In the early 19th century, doctors routinely went, without washing, from autopsies to the treatment of patients – with disastrous results. Ignaz Semmelweis is the man who first hypothesized the basic relationship and proposed and tested a change to clean hands – yet in his own time he was rejected by his peers, because he questioned the accepted practice. Mr. Semmelweis was only vindicated by research that occurred after his death in an insane asylum."

If you are an agent for positive change, you've probably recognized the exasperated looks on the faces of people when you've challenged the status quo and asked the ever threatening question why. The looks say "Are you nuts?" as you questions are seen as threats as opposed to opportunity for advancement and improvement.

Yet imagine if the three year old child stopped asking the why and just accepted things how they are? Imagine if Einstein, Madame Curie, Galileo and a myriad of others would have accepted the answer "Because" or the more advanced version "Because we've always done it this way!"

Stalk recommends asking Why? at five times. In fact if there is an attempt to red herring any changes -- five might be the minimum.

Corporations and governments which on a continual basis hail the advancements of others believe they are being appropriately cautious when not allowing for more of the why questioning, when in fact they are stifling creativity and enabling their enterprise to remain on an ever-revolving hamster-wheel.

People are afraid of Why -- a simple three letter word that can open up an entire new way of thinking -- But aye there's the rub -- many are happy with mediocre and why might mean more work!