BENDING IT LIKE BECKHAM

Have you heard the term "bend it like Beckham?" It refers to a move of soccer icon David Beckham  wherein he squared his body at a 90 degree angle with the ball, which created an intense amount of spin l and caused the ball to curve an astounding amount.  

And although not a smooth segue, consider this curvature and bending when associated with rules. People say "I didn't break the rules, I just bent them a bit," or "there is nothing in the rules that says I can't do this." It seems that the spirit of rules has been lost in rationalization and debate.

Now please understand, I know that things aren't black and white, and there are probably a lot more than "fifty shades of grey" when it comes to rules. If a rule doesn't make sense, I am usually the first one to challenge it, because let's face it, some rules are just downright stupid!

I began to reflect on our amorphous rule culture the other day, as I was reading another report of the Senate scandal happening now in Canada. When defending the inappropriate spending habits, almost all of the Senators have said something to the effect that what they did wasn't explicitly against the rules. It didn't say, according to them, in any of the fine print "thou shalt not." So they figured it was OK.

I am not going to get into my opinions about this debacle, but it does bring up the difference between rules and ethics. Rules are guidelines. Even the biggest rules of all time, the Ten Commandments, will have exceptions. "Thou Shalt not Kill" seems pretty clear, but when you are in imminent threat of being murdered by someone else, you can kill them in an act of self-defence. So you see, guidelines.

But ethics are sacrosanct, at least from my perspective. Ethical behaviour is a built in compass. It guides you, even when a rule doesn't explicitly say that something shouldn't be done, or worse, when a rule goes against every moral code. We have heard variations of rule following from the likes of Adolf Eichmann "I was only following orders," to variations of this theme with employees of Enron, Lehman Brothers etc. where the vast majority stayed quiet in the face of rampant ethical breaches, by the leaders of these companies. The leaders are the "rule setters", and inevitably the "rule role-models." Yet, in the postscripts of many of these scandals, employees would lament that they knew (ethically) it was wrong, but what could they do?

I have stood up against ethical breaches, and sometimes paid the price for it. And I have also broken rules that didn't make sense, but these rules never impinged on ethics. Ever.

So as I watch those in corporations and in government put tremendous spin on that they really couldn't "break a rule" when it wasn't specifically stated, I ask them to consider the ethical spirit of the rule.

Bending "rules" like Beckham may be OK sometimes. But the ethics implied in the rule, should be a straight kick into the goal.

SELLING YOUR SOUL

If you dance with the devil, do you really expect him not to lead?

I was reminded of this phrase (which I believe my cousin coined), when listening to the daily media barrage of political and corporate scandals. I don't believe that any of these folk went out and decided a path towards highly questionable and potentially criminal behaviour. 

As is often the case with unethical behaviour, one step into the grey, leads to the next, until the slippery slope has you diving head first into the quagmire of corruption.

If you dance with the devil, do you really expect him not to lead?

I have faced many situations within my career, where I could have taken this off-ramp. When you have had the positions which I have occupied, there will be pressure from on-high to possibly give business to a "friend", a "favourite" or the like, and I've refused. This refusal did in one instance cost me my job, but I was good with that. Because you can always get another job, but you can't get another reputation.

And I've seen others, who began that journey. A favour here, a "tweak" there, awarding business not to the best company, but because a) they've gotten pressure to do so; or b) they allowed themselves to become too close to their suppliers -- accepting boondoggles of various kinds. Some of these folk have been caught and others have actually done quite well in their corporations,  getting accolades and bonuses.

If you dance with the devil, do you really expect him not to lead?

If you are an ethical supplier, even if a large client or potential client asks you to do something unethical, do you say "Ok, just this once" or are your courageous and decide that no amount of revenue is worth it. Lots of pressure to do so, but will you?

I would say unfortunately in the corporate game of life, the former is probably the case more often than the latter.

But you know, that "just this time" or "Ok, don't tell anyone" or "If I don't somebody else will" or whatever phrase you can think of to somehow justify your behaviour, means you have sold your soul.

Because once you've traversed into that murky realm and don't get caught, or the heavens don't open and a lightning bolt is sent to smite you, you might rationalize that it was OK. The problem is by this time you've sold your soul and then it becomes routine to do "whatever it takes" and there you go, down the rabbit-hole.

How? Well, your boss, your client, your co-worker, whomever now owns you. They could easily let slip that you did this questionable thing. They definitely wouldn't let it be known that they were complicit, it would all totally rest on your shoulders. And if you are in the public eye? Once the media gets their hook into you, well, they just don't let go. 

If you dance with the devil, do you really expect him not to lead?

And for those who I see being "successful" who I know have traversed the river to the unethical land? Well, I do believe that what goes around, comes around. I've seen it happen too often not to.

So when faced with an ethical issue, either professionally or personally, think twice. The devil is always open to collecting more souls!

UNETHICAL BY PROXY

If you build that foundation, both the moral and the ethical foundation, as well as the business foundation, and the experience foundation, then the building won't crumble...Henry Kravis

There is unrelenting, increasing pressure on corporations to cut costs. The problem with trying to meet metrics, which are sometimes unrealistic, it  causes the people within that corporation to cut corners, to turn a blind eye, just to ensure that their boss showers them with accolades and possibly a salary increase.

But what happens when you accept a price reduction but it is because the supplier is doing something not quite on the up-and-up? You may suspect this, you may know it, or perhaps not. Regardless, you have now become unethical by proxy and the potential damage to your reputation and that of your corporation are at risk.

When reviewing the response to an RFP, most evaluators will have lots of questions when there is an obvious low-ball offer. But we often don't question when there is only a few percent point differential and as such happily go ahead and award the business. Then we can joyfully put our savings into the spreadsheet, believing that we have done a good days work. 

Yet this is not where your due diligence should end. There are some industries where there are very low margins (particularly when the client is a large corporation), things like couriers, distribution, contract labour etc., where even a few percent difference from the "pack" should give pause. 

Is there something that this lower provider does not include in their pricing that will cost you more in the long run? Or are they doing something behind the scenes that may not be illegal, but falls squarely in the unethical arena? 

In procurement, it is our role to ensure ethical behaviour by all, our internal clients and our suppliers. We cannot end up saying "well, it was them, not us." This doesn't fly and the accolades you got today, could quickly turn into jeers tomorrow. And worse yet if you've been advised that there is some funny business going on, or that you suspect it. 

By proxy you are as culpable as the culprit -- you are an enabler or as they say in criminal court you are an accessory. 

So be careful about just being metric and not ethics oriented, because otherwise your carefully constructed pyramid of savings will crumble in an instant, along with your reputation.

IT'S NOT CHEATING IF IT'S LEVELLING THE PLAYING FIELD, THE CANCER MADE ME DO IT, AND LET'S NOT FORGET I'M SORRY

I just finished watching the entire Lance Armstrong interview with Oprah Winfrey. I am one of those foolish people that believed Lance Armstrong even when the USADA came out against him and he decided not to fight back. Stupidly I thought he had just gotten tired of justifying himself and so it was easier for him to give up the good fight rather and move on. To say I am disappointed is a significant understatement.

I am usually not this gullible. In fact, I consider myself to be a pretty good judge of character. I had read Armstrong's book "It's Not About the Bike" which detailed his courageous fight with testicular and inevitably other forms of cancer. I was inspired by his unwillingness to give in and to rage against this disease. He was in my books a hero of sorts.

And now this. I don't believe Armstrong's mea culpa. Authenticity seemed to be lacking with his statements and as well, his body language did not support his tale. During his narrative I found myself dumbfounded on a couple of occasions and rewound to ensure that I had heard his treatises correctly.

When asked by Oprah as to whether he felt or knew he was cheating he said: It's not cheating when it is levelling the playing field. Huh? So as long as everybody else is doing it then it's OK? Does this mean in business if all the vendors are offering bribes and other "incentives" to obtain business, it's OK for you to do so as well? Can you imagine standing in front of a judge and have as your defence "Well, everybody else is doing it, so even though it is against the law, I'm no worse than anybody else!" Have you ever tried using that reasoning with a police officer if stopped for speeding? "Gee, officer, I was just going as fast as everybody else." See how that works for you.

What's right and wrong doesn't change just because others are doing it. Lance Armstrong was not doping because of some noble cause which would perhaps provide some justification for throwing ethics to the wind. He did it for himself and only for himself. His need to win and show himself to be better than anyone else is not remotely a justification for cheating. And let's get this straight -- it was not levelling the playing field. It was out and out cheating on a grand scale.

Which brings me to his statements about winning at all cost. This is where he felt perhaps he should be absolved because the cancer made him do it. For those of you who saw the interview, this was the point in time when you could have picked my jaw up off the floor. He said that he wasn't a jerk or a bully prior to the cancer (although anecdotes from others say differently) and he didn't have the attitude of win at all costs prior to the cancer. So ergo, if he didn't have the cancer he wouldn't have proceeded down the path he had. But here's the rub. He was doping prior to having the cancer and about a few minutes before this bizarre revelation he had said that he was always a fighter, relentless and ruthless. So, please, if you are going to try to rationalize your ethical breach, can you remember back a few minutes, because you have to string your lies together to give them any veracity.

As far as I am concerned Lance Armstrong is a classical narcissist (Narcissism is a generalized personality trait characterized by egotism, vanity, conceit, or selfishness....Wikipedia) and as much as I would wish there is redemption for this type of personality, I am sorry to report there is not, when it is as extreme as witnessed during his attempt at absolution.

I am reading a book right now called the "Wisdom of Psychopaths" by Kevin Dutton, so maybe I'm a little jaded right now. But what I continually see is this absolute disregard for the truth and ethical behaviour that makes you sometimes wonder if you are the only one who believes in doing the right thing. Recently in Toronto, we've had the Director of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) resign because he plagiarized in an article he wrote and now it seems that he plagiarized his way to his career, including in his PhD thesis. 

I feel that Lance Armstrong did not need an Oprah interview. He should have gone on the Dr. Phil show, where Dr. Phil would have said "What were you thinking?"Well, Lance, you obviously weren't thinking and you deserve every sanction you get. No excuses, rationalizations or redemption for you. Sorry just doesn't cut it!

NO FIFTY SHADES WHEN IT COMES TO ETHICAL DECISIONS

 One of the most popular books in the stratosphere right now is Fifty Shades of Grey. I picked it up because I thought that this book was going to be about ethical dilemmas, as opposed to what it turned out to be! 

Yet, regardless of my need to read book reviews in the future (prior to buying), the title intrigued me from an ethical perspective, because so many believe that there are at least fifty shades of grey when it comes to decisions that they may believe are not necessarily a choice between "black" or "white" .

I have written extensively on ethics, over the years --in this blog (Conflict of Interest - What is it?, If it looks bad in a headline, don't do it, OOOps, I didn't know, and other unacceptable excuses) as well as for some magazines. And although the "right" decision may not be as clear as a neon sign pulsating in front of you, your instinct, or "gut", will usually be guiding you in the proper direction. There are no fifty shades wherein the decision becomes a moral pretzel. My experience has been that  when someone argues about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a direction it is usually around fear of the ramifications to themselves (ego-driven).

Right now in Toronto we have a mayor (this is purposely lower case, because he doesn't deserve to be referred to with capitalization) is arguing that  because he didn't read the conflict of interest guidelines, (read story here) he is not culpable for having broken the rules. Huh?

Where is his responsibility as a leader (again not capitalized) to ensure not only that he is abreast of all the rules of office? Yet, beyond that, he is the role-model for the rest of organization. If someone else had broken the conflict of interest rules, perhaps someone whom the mayor is not fond of, do you think for one minute he wouldn't have used these "unread" rules to get rid of this opposition.

We have too many individuals in both corporate and government using the "I am not responsible because I didn't know" excuse. This is never an excuse and quite honestly I am sure that this specific example was done with full knowledge (as are most) but with the arrogant thought that he wasn't going to be caught.

Do we really think that any criminals (either on the street or in offices) consider that they may be caught? Do you think that Bernie Madoff, the CEO of Tyco, the CEO of Nortel etc., etc. didn't know they were doing anything wrong? They knew, but thought that they weren't going to have to pay the piper -- because, hey, they are smarter than the rest of us and rules don't apply to them.

I know I'm ranting here...but it disgusts me when people play fast and lose with ethics, plead ignorance when caught and seem to have a revelation of sorts, with hundreds of mea culpas -- saying "if only I had known, I wouldn't have done this." 

Do they really have that little respect for the rest of us -- that they think we are that stupid? I hope that our mayor gets fired -- not just because he is not good for the city in general -- but because this would send a message that there are consequences and that there is a no tolerance policy when it comes to ethical issues.

There are no shades of grey here!

COMMONPLACE CORRUPTION: HAVE WE BECOME DESENSITIZED?

There is an article from a couple of days ago in the NY Times entitled The Spreading Scourge of Corporate Corruption. It mentions studies done which indicate that the public basically expects corruption from corporations -- in fact it says that 62% of Americans believe corporate corruption is widespread and a whopping 75% believe it has increased over the last three years.

Wow, what a sad testament that is to our society today. Granted some of the thoughts here would be reflective of the banking debacles back a few years ago, but it can't explain the entire lack of faith.

Corruption, bribery and the like have been around ad infinitum. But I think today the impact of corruption (or mismanagement) has a much longer tail and affects so much more, just because of the global web of industry. When corruption is uncovered, the dominoes start to fall and the impact is not only global but comparatively instantaneous.

What is causing this? I think partly it is the constant analyst requirements which measure a company on short term performance. Inherently that means many CEOs want to become darlings of the investment community so they can move on to bigger and better gigs and well, if the rules have to be bent a little, well so be it. And of course once down that slippery slope into the greys..well it is not that long until the next minor step is into full scale corrupt activity. 

Or is it also possible that we embrace qualities of CEOs that are not good for the company or the people because the qualities that they have mean they may be psychopaths? A recent study (click here for at the article) about this is sobering. The expectation is that 10% of all people in the financial services sector meet the criteria for psychopathy. So if you work in this sector, look around, you probably know someone who is psychopathic.

Maybe we have to rethink the qualities that we want in our people and our leaders. If a CEO moves around a lot from place to place, don't hire them on their short term results -- see how broken they left the company upon their departure. I once had a corporate CEO who destroyed a company I worked for (it doesn't exist anymore) after driving the stock up and then after leadership by humiliation and fear the stock tanked and held junk bond status -- just like the company from where he came - although he was smart or lucky enough to get out of that fiasco in time. You probably wonder how he could survive if he was such a bad leader? Because he managed upward very, very well.

But why aren't we all up in arms and shouting to the corporate titans enough? Because we have become desensitized and for many it has become "well that is just how it is." Well, no, it isn't. There are ethical companies and leaders. If people see an ethical breach, they need to have courage and be willing to risk their jobs for it. I have, and yes, I lost my job because of it and nothing changed in the company -- but at least I can say I tried.

So let's not accept the unethical -- in the long term in hurts everyone.

Tendering for the sake of Tendering

Today in the newspaper there was another in a series of articles on inappropriate procurement practices at e-Health. So not that this is new news, but the issue that caught my eye today was about the $1billion contract awarded to IBM without tendering.

The comment that was made by someone in the government was that even though it would have most probably gone to IBM anyway, it should have been tendered. And this is where I wholeheartedly disagree.

Please understand that I am a proponent of fair and ethical procurement. And this also means that when a tender is issued that all parties truly have a shot at the business, vs. issuing an RFP just for optics or for benchmarking.

Over the years, I was often asked to issue RFPs to "squeeze the incumbent" or to "just look like we are considering others." Well guess what? I refused, because I know the costs and time that companies will spend pulling together a competitive bid, the resources etc. And if this I as the issuer am just putting an RFP out there for the sake of optics, then I am being way more inappropriate than if I didn't do it in the first place.

The risks associated with the illusionary RFP are even larger than if no RFP is issued at all -- the main one being that the award can be challenged in court and that the evaluator(s) would need to defend the decision. I have worked on enough of these to know that there is a lot of subjectivity that goes into the final decision, regardless of the weightings and evaluation grids -- at the end of the day, it is not just a mathematical formula.

The time that it costs the organization to issue and evaluate an RFP is also quite massive and I'm sure at this juncture the government and crown agencies are overwhelmed with what is being asked of them -- and understand the decisions that will be made because of lack of resources and time constraints will be suboptimal.

If an incumbent is doing a fine job and is market competitive (a little bit of research will ensure this) and if there is a need for continuity, if they only have this particular expertise -- whatever the reason, the organization would be better served by making a case for no tender than just put one out there which basically is like hiding yourself behind a fake nose and glasses. Everyone knows its not real, but suppliers feel compelled to participate.

If you are not sure, issue an RFI to at least investigate whether there are things you don't know -- which may convince you to issue an RFP.

But please, let's not issue RFPs, just for the sake of doing it. There is already too much waste in government and corporations.

"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.