Elliot Spitzer Did Not “Choose Wisely”

kevin | Ethics | Tuesday, March 11th, 2008

The writing is on the wall. Governor Spitzer’s political career is over, at least for the time being. While it’s not yet certain if this will rise to the level of national importance that Britney Spear’s or Lindsey Lohan’s slow-motion implosions did, it is well on its way to being an ink and blog magnet of the first order.

People will find meaning from all directions in this. It’s a morality tale. No, it’s about the pitfalls of power. No, it’s just another example of the evils men do. Ahh, it’s a story of comeuppance, the prince of ethics and the Sheriff of Wall Street reaping the whirlwind

Some snips . . .

NYT

“I think biologists could tell you this has something to do with natural selection — the person who acquires power becomes the alpha male,” said Tom Fiedler, who teaches a course in press and politics at Harvard’s Kennedy School. He was involved in reporting Gary Hart’s notorious fling with Donna Rice in 1987 that terminated the senator’s presidential bid.

Politics and sex is an old story, and as Mr. Fiedler and others point out, it simply reinforces the lessons of the aphrodisiac of power taught in Shakespeare. Its prime characters constitute a crowded society.

WSJ

The news stunned traders on Wall Street, where Mr. Spitzer long has been viewed with fear and contempt. Some view the revelations as a huge hypocrisy for a man, who as New York’s attorney general, had aggressively pushed for ethics and fair play on Wall Street earlier this decade. People who clashed hardest with Mr. Spitzer are among those crowing the loudest.

“He actually believes he’s above the law,” said Ken Langone, a former New York Stock Exchange director who now heads a small investment-banking firm. In his role as prosecutor, Mr. Spitzer sued Mr. Langone for his role in doling out the large pay package of former New York Stock Exchange CEO Dick Grasso. “I have never had any doubt about his lack of character and integrity — and he’s proven me correct.”

His political rivals, too, jumped into the fray.

“This is not a victimless crime,” said U.S. Rep. Peter King, Republican of Long Island. “I’ve never known anyone who was more self-righteous and unforgiving than Eliot Spitzer.”

Mr. Spitzer’s fall from grace could mark the end of the public career of a man who has had a profound impact on corporate America. Amid the rash of corporate scandals that plagued Wall Street early this decade, he was the single most visible force trying to weed out abuses and bring down wayward chief executives.

AP

Why do otherwise smart, successful people do such risky things? For psychologists and political analysts who found themselves dissecting the Spitzer story, it was a question of the chicken or the egg: In such situations, does the risky behavior precede the powerful job? Or does something about being in power cause the behavior?

Many speculated that it was a combination of the two. “We’re all human,” said Leon Hoffman, a psychoanalyst in New York.

And yet, Hoffman said, there may be something about the aura of power surrounding a prominent politician that makes him feel potentially immune from consequences.

“There’s the psychology of the exception,” said Hoffman, former chairman of the American Psychoanalytic Association’s public information committee. “People in power sometimes feel they can do things that us, mere mortals, are forbidden to do. There’s a sense, as with adolescents, that ‘I won’t get caught.’ “

Political analyst Steven Cohen was wary of trying to draw any conclusions about the corrupting influence of power.

“The problem is we don’t know when this behavior started for this person,” said Cohen, a professor of public administration at Columbia University. “Politicians are like the rest of us. The fact that they’re flawed and do stupid things shouldn’t surprise us.”

Half a dozen stories from literature and antiquity come to mind as well–Icarus and Narcissus are two that come to mind–warning of the follies of ambition and hubris.

In the end, Governor Spitzer will or won’t come to grip with the shadows and dark energies he’s carrying with him. Maybe he goes into the cave and sees Darth Vader and maybe he doesn’t. Maybe he learns something important about himself, and maybe he doesn’t . . . this time around.

If there is a lesson here, it’s that. Nobody can carry that much anger, than much self-righteousness, and that much ego around and not fall down. It’s just a matter of when and how.The rest is just prurient interest and politics.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Harvard must have a case of "Stanford Envy”

kevin | Decision Making,Ethics | Sunday, March 2nd, 2008

It must be “Stanford Envy.” How else can you explain Harvard’s foray into the murky realms of “competing at the highest levels” or whatever it is they think they’re now going to do with men’s basketball.

Harvard has never won an Ivy League title in men’s basketball and has not reached the N.C.A.A. tournament since 1946. This season, the team won only 8 of its first 28 games. Like all the universities in the Ivy League, Harvard does not award athletic scholarships.

Yet the group of six recruits expected to join the team next season is rated among the nation’s 25 best. This is partly because Harvard Coach Tommy Amaker, who starred at Duke and coached in the Big East and Big Ten conferences, has set his sights on top-flight recruits. It is also because Harvard is willing to consider players with a lower academic standing than previous staff members said they were allowed to. Harvard has also adopted aggressive recruiting tactics that skirt or, in some cases, may even violate National Collegiate Athletic Association rules.

This is the part I really don’t get . . .

Harvard’s efforts in basketball underscore the increasingly important role that success in high-profile sports plays at even the most elite universities. In the race to become competitive in basketball, Harvard’s new approach could tarnish the university’s sterling reputation.

What am I missing here? If Harvard isn’t the most competitive to enter university in the land, it can’t be far off the pace. The endowment is embarrassingly large. In fact, in a truly weird display of noblese oblige, Harvard is now sort of giving away tuition to middle class people.

So what, pray tell, is going on with this push to win basketball games? So more people will apply? So that alum will give even more money? So that the word “Harvard” will appear even more often in internet searches? If it’s not too much to ask, what was alternative B?

Blogged with Flock

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Enter the "Gray Zone” at your peril

kevin | Ethics | Sunday, February 17th, 2008

The world of sports (universe, planet, neighborhood?) continues to provide case studies galore in ethical behavior, the two most current being the MLB drug-circus and Spygate over in the NFL. Here’s the nub of the later . . .

An N.F.L. team could place an army of lip readers on the sideline to try to steal messages from the opposing side. It could fill a row of seats behind the other team’s bench with espionage experts to decipher all the sideline cues. It could have scouts in the press box aiming binoculars at every opposing coach, scribbling notes to match with game tape to glean what all the signals mean.

All that is allowed, and maybe some of it is done. But videotaping the other sideline? Do not think about it.

And therein lies one of the quirky twists to what may already be the biggest cheating scandal in the N.F.L.’s history, a chapter that began when the Patriots were caught taping the Jets’ sideline last September.

The issue is not stealing signals. That is allowed, “and it is done quite widely,” Commissioner Roger Goodell said recently.

The issue, rather, is the method of acquiring the signals.

A bit later in the piece, we’re treated to this bit of shadow boxing.

The message is a murky one, ethicists said. Further advances in technology, combined with the game’s winking culture toward espionage, promise to confuse matters.

“Is it a gray area? Yes,” Sharon Stoll, the director for a center on sports ethics at the University of Idaho, said in a telephone interview. “And they have a problem. We enjoy the nature of competition and gamesmanship. And we enjoy placing those skills against each other. But how far are those skills to go?”

The logic here is so tortured it’s absurd. Where is the ethical gray zone? Stealing is stealing. If it’s not going to be characterized as thievery and is indeed “part of the game,” why worry about the media? It’s permissible to tape the game, why not what’s happening on the sidelines.

Of even greater absurdity is that any of this is being discussed in the hallowed-halls of Congress at all. It’s a game.

As to the ethical lessons we might derive? At least one is the difficulty of dancing in “the gray zone.”

Blogged with Flock

Tags: , , , , ,

Depressing lack of "progress” on ethics in corporations

kevin | Decision Making,Ethics | Friday, February 15th, 2008

The Ethics Resource Center’s recent survey indicates a depressing lack of progress in changing the ethical tide in corporate America. Cynics among us won’t be surprised. Investors might want to take care. Here’s a clip from the ERC press release . . .

Ethics Risk Landscape Just As Treacherous

11/28/2007

Washington, D.C., November 28, 2007 – Six years after high-profile corporate scandals rocked American business, there has been little if any meaningful reduction in the enterprise-wide risk of unethical behavior at U.S. companies, according to the Ethics Resource Center’s 2007 National Business Ethics Survey®. ERC is a private, nonprofit organization whose research and advocacy focus on the advancement of high ethical standards and practices in public and private institutions.

Interviews with almost 2,000 employees at U.S. public and private companies of all sizes for the biennial NBES® show disturbing shares of workers witnessing ethical misconduct at work – and tending not to report what they see. Conflicts of interest, abusive behavior and lying pose the most severe ethics risks to companies today.

The measurable lack of progress in business ethics should signal a need for company management, Boards of Directors, policy-makers, investors and consumers to reassess their approach to that challenge, said ERC President Patricia Harned, Ph.D.

“Despite new regulation and significant efforts to reduce misconduct and increase reporting when it does occur, the ethics risk landscape in American business is as treacherous as it was before implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,” Dr. Harned said.

Over the past year, more than half (56 percent) of employees surveyed had personally observed violations of company ethics standards, policy, or the law. Many saw multiple violations. More than two of five employees (42 percent) who witnessed misconduct did not report it through any company channels.

According to Dr. Harned, “There is a strong sense of futility and fear among employees when it comes to reporting ethical misconduct, and that increases the danger to business. More than half (54 percent) of employees who witnessed but did not report misconduct believed that reporting would not lead to corrective action. More than a third (36 percent) of non-reporters feared retaliation from at least one source; but our research shows that having a strong ethical culture virtually eliminates retaliation.”

“Employees at all levels have not increased their ‘ethical courage’ in recent years,” Dr. Harned said. “The rate of observed misconduct has crept back above where it was in 2000. And employees’ willingness to report misconduct has not improved, either.”

Blogged with Flock

Tags: , , , ,

Public Lying and the $3 Trillion Budget

kevin | Decision Making,Ethics | Wednesday, February 6th, 2008

The current three trillion dollar budget stikes me as an example of public lying of the first order. A shining example of attempting to hide inconvenient facts in plain site. I had this to say about it on another blog.

So why am I going on about this? Besides my general pique, it should stand out as a huge ethical-object lesson. There are all kinds of stories our elected officials tell themselves as to why the do what they do and why they say what they say. Indeed, the same is true for us. We vote for this person or that person largely because of stories we’re told and stories we tell ourselves about the person’s beliefs, values, or maybe credentials.

But what about telling the truth? What happened to that? It’s a pretty simple test actually. If you know something to be one way and you say something different, that’s not telling the truth, regardless of the reasons why you do that. There are fancy academic terms for describing why and how people shade the truth, but the simplest one is “lying.”

This budget is one gigantic lie. A very gigantic lie. “Rosy assumptions” is just a word for lying. Moving numbers out of the equation and “off the books” is lying. Failing to include expenses that you know are coming is lying. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Kevin Rants: Bush’s Three Trillion Dollar Lie

kah

Blogged with Flock

Tags: , , , ,

« Previous Page

home | process | manifesto | attention | mapping | books | offers | downloads | faq | contacts | sitemap | DQI blog
Theme by Roy Tanck | website by Peyton Designs | © Copyright 2008, DQI, LLC