Is it still funny when the joke's on you?That's the question that drives the conversation when John E. McGlothlin, 🟦 Mark O'Brien, and Annette Taylor join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.And many thanks to my friend Melissa Hughes for suggesting the topic.  Here it is:In 2005, a British reality TV program chose four finalists from a group of 25 applicants to become the world’s first space-tourists. They were flown to a training site in Russia, underwent rigorous training, and were about to embark on a 5-day journey into orbit.At least that’s what they thought. In fact, the Russian training camp was a decommissioned military base near Suffolk, England. The entire project was a charade, and one of the four participants, as well as the pilots and the training crew, were actors and part of the conspiracy.After five days in “space” – where they were provided with ludicrous explanations for the lack of zero gravity, performed nonsensical experiments, and gazed at earth through the observation window – the adventure culminated with a spacewalk. Instead of stepping out into the void, they stepped out into a film studio in front of a live audience. Clearly, the “passengers” were embarrassed at being the butt of an elaborate practical joke. It may have eased their humiliation that they were paid 25,000 British pounds for their participation. But does that excuse this kind of deception? Is it different from many psychology experiments, which depend on deception to gain insights into human psychology?Much of reality TV celebrates deception, betrayal, bullying, and winning at any cost. What is the effect on us as individuals and members of society? Are these kinds of entertainment contributing to us becoming more cynical, self-absorbed, and disconnected from one another?If so, what is their attraction, and what can we do about their impact on our culture?Meet this week’s panel:John E. McGlothlin is a captain in the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps and D.C. army reserve, as well as an adjunct professor of business and ethics at the University of Maryland Global Campus.Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs.Annette Taylor is a researcher of evolutionary psychology and biology. Her website, Cavedweller Club, offers guidance and insights on how we can better understand the way our own hardwiring influences unconscious bias and decision making.#ethics #culture #humor #mindset #grappling

What happens when technical performance clashes with technical problems?That's the question that drives the conversation when Sam Ardery, JC Glick, and S. Scott Mason join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our topic:Imagine that you’ve just completed your skating, diving, or gymnastic event to win Olympic Bronze. You are elated to have earned the right to stand on the podium and receive your medal. Minutes later, you discover that, because of a scoring error, the athlete who had ranked fifth actually came in ahead of you to take third.Would you argue that once the results have been announced, the decision is irrevocable, or would you graciously return the medal that you hadn’t actually earned in the first place? This, of course, is exactly what happened in the recent Olympic games, when judges misscored U.S. gymnast Jordan Chiles and awarded the bronze to Romania’s Ana Bǎrbosu then, moments later, stripped the medal from Ms. Barbosu and gave it to Ms. Chiles… until the next day, when the judges reversed themselves again, instructing Ms. Chiles to return her medal because she had failed to submit her review request within the 60-second filing period, missing the window by four seconds.Days after the debacle, the International Gymnastics Federation President finally addressed the issue, blaming the controversy on the lack of technology used in the judging process… a non-apology apology which satisfied virtually no one.Judges are human beings, so judging errors can happen, painful as they are. But it’s often what we do after we make mistakes that matters most, and how we plan ahead to minimize mistakes when they happen.Is a 60-second window for filing an inquiry reasonable – especially considering that every athlete except the one who goes last is given four minutes? Does it matter that the judges accepted the inquiry when–because it was late–they shouldn’t have accepted it at all? Should there even be a limit when a judging error deprives a deserving athlete of a medal? And once the error has been made, should the feelings of the undeserving athlete who was told she had won figure into the resolution?Both Chiles and Barbosu asked to share the bronze medal. Is that the right decision, or should actual performance scoring be the only criterion? Meet the panelists:Sam Ardery is a national mediator, trial lawyer, consultant, speaker, and author. He teaches negotiation at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law and is author of Positively Conflicted: Engaging with Courage, Compassion and Wisdom in a Combative World.Scott Mason, aka the Myth Slayer, is a speaker, podcast host, and coach working with executives and entrepreneurs to Magnetize & Monetize Professional Freedom by Dislodging Toxic Myths to Ignite the Charisma Within.JC Glick is a retired Army Ranger Lieutenant Colonel. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as CEO of the Commit Foundation, an organization that helps high-performance veterans find their next adventure.#ethics #accountability #culture #values #olympics

Is it ever beneficial to intentionally send the wrong message?That's the question that drives the conversation when Richard Bistrong, Ron Carucci, and 💜Heather R Younger, J.D., CSP® join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our topic:Earlier this summer, a CEO and tech entrepreneur named Rob Dance ignited a firestorm on Twitter with a post titled: "Things I'm sick of hearing from my employees."His list included: Can I leave early today? I'll be in late this morning. My child is sick, can I rush off? I've got a doctor's appointment tomorrow, is that okay? I'm going to be late back from lunch, I've got some things to sort.He concludes with this pithy, editorial remark:I don’t care.Not surprisingly, the post attracted a barrage of critics, decrying his insensitivity and calling him a variety of colorful names. To which he replied with a short question:Did you finish reading the whole post?Because he concludes with these comments:"I hired you for a job and I fully TRUST you to get it done. I don't need you to account for every single hour. Times have changed, and the workplace is different these days. People are sick of being treated like children."All that should matter is that everyone is happy, and that the work gets done. My advice to companies: Treat your staff like adults. That’s it, that’s the big secret. Give them autonomy, respect that they have lives outside of work, don’t gaslight them into being grateful for not being fired every day. Output should always trump hours."One of my mantras is that Trust is the T in ETHICS. But is it wise to trust that readers will make it to the end of a provocative post and not miss the twist at the end? Does this style come across as snarky or refreshingly candid? Is it worth the risk of being misunderstood to make a critical point?And aside from style, is Rob Dance’s advice practical in a culture where so many employers complain about workers slacking off and shirking their responsibilities? And if it is, why does it seem to be so rare?***Richard Bistrong is CEO of Front-Line Anti-Bribery, LLC, assisting organizations with ethics, compliance, and anti-bribery challenges to help surface unknowns and shine a light on the real-world importance of operationalizing ethics & integrity.Ron Carucci is owner and managing partner of Navelent, helping organizations articulate a strategy for success, translate that strategy into results, and develop exceptional leaders along the way.Heather Younger is a Certified Speaking Professional and LinkedIn Learning instructor.  She is also CEO and founder of Employee Fanatix, helping equip companies and organizations with the intelligence they need to improve the quality of work life for their employees.#ethics #leadership #communication #culture #trust #grappling

How responsible am I for other people's irresponsible behavior?That's the question that drives the conversation when Jeff Koziatek, • Sam Silverstein, CSP, CPAE, and Kirsten Yurich join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is this week's ethics challenge:Your house is adjacent to the entrance of a primary school. Morning drop-offs and afternoon pickups are always a mess as cars jockey for position on the narrow street. Often, parents mount the curb as they back up in order to make their turns.Occasionally, they bump into the four-inch post that supports your backyard fence. Sometimes, they hit it hard enough to dislodge or break it. You complain to the school and to the parents, but your objections aren’t taken seriously and the damage continues.During summer break, you replace the wooden post with an iron ‘I’ beam and paint it brown to match the color of the fence. It’s not long into the next school year when you get a knock at your door.An irate parent is demanding that you pay for the damage to their car from hitting your post. This parent won’t be the last. You point out that the parent was both breaking the law by mounting the curb and reckless for doing so at high enough speed to cause damage. Then you shut the door in their face.This story, posted on Reddit, was celebrated by commenters. But was the homeowner’s response the right thing to do?Meet this week’s panelists:Jeff Koziatek is a certified speaker and peak performance coach, helping professionals to navigate change, sharpen focus, avoid burnout, and make a difference. He is also one of St. Louis Business Monthly's 100 St. Louisans you should know.Sam Silverstein is Founder of The Accountability Institute. He is an executive consultant on workplace culture, a Hall of Fame Keynote Speaker, and author of numerous books including “No More Excuses” and “The Accountability Advantage.”Kirsten Yurich is an Organizational Performance Management Consultant, Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc., and Adjunct Professor of Education at Felician University.#ethics #civilsociety #accountability #mindset #grappling

When does character assessment become invasion of privacy?That's the question that drives the conversation when Deb Coviello The Drop In CEO™, Diane Helbig, and Raj Tut join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is this episode's ethics challenge:A woman shows up at a company office to interview for an administrative position. Her resume is impressive, she is dressed professionally, and she enjoys a cordial and comfortable conversation with the interviewer.As the interview seems to be winding down, she feels confident and encouraged, when out of the blue the interviewer says, “May I take a look in your purse?”The candidate is caught completely off guard. When she asks why, the interviewer replies, “It’s the best indicator of a woman’s organizational character.”More bewildered than before, the candidate hands over her purse. The interviewer looks quickly through it, hands it back, then thanks the candidate for coming in and shows her the door. A few days later, she receives an email that her application was not successful.This case, which was posted online, generated considerable speculation as to the interviewer’s motive. What did they hope to learn? Why might the candidate have been rejected? And should she have handed over the purse when asked?Other stories include the interviewer who gives candidates a wobbly chair to see if they would speak up and ask for a different one, or the interviewer who invites candidates out for a drink to see if he can get them drunk.Assuming that the intent is to discover insights into a candidate’s character, are these kinds of tactics ethical, or are they deceptive? Even if they reveal what the interviewer hopes to discover, are they worth the cost in undermining trust and respect? And how should interviewees respond if they feel boundaries are being crossed by their prospective employers?Meet the panelists:Deb Coviello, aka the Drop in CEO, is an author, speaker, podcast host, and silver medalist curler who coaches C-Suite leaders of today and tomorrow to navigate challenges with confidence.Diane Helbig is Chief Improvement Catalyzer at Helbig Enterprises, providing guidance and training to business owners and leaders around the world.Raj Tut is founder and CEO of Storyboard Living, creating communities that provide a safe, beautiful backdrop for life’s greatest moments.#ethics #character #accountability #leadership #trust #grappling

Thank you for your support in reaching episode 100 of Grappling with the Gray!Celebrate with me as three of my stalwart recurring guests -- Kimberly Davis, 🟦 Melissa Hughes, Ph.D., and Peter Winick -- join the panel for this milestone.Here is our topic:This past June, a bill signed into law made Louisiana the only state requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every classroom in public schools and colleges. Not surprisingly, civil liberties groups planned lawsuits to block the law, arguing it would unconstitutionally breach protections against government-imposed religion, unfairly and illegally eroding the constitutional barrier between religion and government.This is a dramatic reversal from 2003, when former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore was ousted from the bench after disobeying a federal judge’s order to remove a 5,000 pound granite monument of Ten Commandments display from the state court building.Baton Rouge Attorney General Liz Murrill commented that, “The 10 Commandments are pretty simple, but they also are important to our country’s foundations.”Research seems to back her up. Behaviorist Dan Ariely has reported that when students were asked to recount the 10 Commandments, they demonstrated less inclination to cheat, even though many of them couldn’t name more than two of the Commandments.A similar question arises almost every December over whether Christmas should be a national holiday. Objectors claim that it is a religious observance unjustly imposed on non-Christians, while defenders argue it is part of our national heritage and part of the cultural fabric of our country.The late Senator Joe Lieberman remarked that the Constitution promises freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Is it possible for us to acknowledge a cultural heritage built on religion while preserving the boundaries between church and state? Meet this week’s panelists:Kimberly Davis is an author, TEDx speaker, and founder of the Brave Leadership University, leading development programs world-wide, around authentic leadership, purpose, presence, and influence.Melissa Hughes is Founder and Principal of the Andrick Group, applying recent brain research to improve employee engagement, company culture, team dynamics, and innovation.Peter Winick works with individuals and organizations to build and grow revenue streams through their thought leadership platforms and is host of the Leveraging Thought Leadership podcast.#ethics #culture #accountability #perspective #grappling

Can compliance demands undermine a healthy and ethical culture?That's the question driving the conversation when 🟦 Carolyn Lebanowski, Toni McLelland MSc FRSA, and Colin D Smith join the ethics panel for a special transatlantic episode of Grappling with the Gray.Here is our topic:A recent post on Reddit recounts how an employee found themselves reprimanded by their manager for taking 45 minutes for break one day instead of 30 minutes. The employee recalled taking 31 minutes that day, because someone stopped them on their way back with a concern that took time to resolve.It seems that the company punch clock rounded to the nearest 15 minute interval, thereby inaccurately recording the break time, but the manager refused to accept that explanation.From that day forward, the employee would go on break exactly seven minutes after the cutoff time and return within seven minutes of the cutoff on the other end. For instance, punching out at 10:08 would get rounded up to 10:15, and punching in at 10:52 would get rounded back to 10:45. In this way, a 44 minute break would be recorded as exactly 30 minutes.When a supervisor told the employee that it seemed they were gone longer than usual, the employee simply said, “Check the record.”Novelist Robert A. Heinlein coined the term “white mutiny,” which means following the letter of the law so literally that you subvert the spirit of the law, Amelia Bedilia style. The contemporary term is malicious compliance.When bosses or managers demand strict compliance to the point where they end up punishing employees because of inequities in their company system, are employees justified in exploiting loopholes in the system to their own advantage?Meet this week’s panelists:Carolyn Lebanowski is Strategic Leadership Partner with The Institute for Leadership and LifeLong Learning International advising spiritual nonprofit institutions.Toni McLelland is Founder and Director of 1st Life Group. She is a Critical Friend & Business Mentor in Social Justice, Mobility & Impact leading sustainable change through DEIB & Compassion.Colin Smith aka The Listener, works with leaders and professionals to improve the listening, thinking and relationships skills of individuals and teams.#ethics #compliance #mindset #culture #accountability #grappling

When you do the wrong thing for the right reason, it is still the wrong thing?Is it possible to apply the principle of fairness so even-handedly that it leads to unfair outcomes?Since mercy is the suspension of justice, how do we avoid sacrificing a core value when we have to choose between them?These are the questions that drive the discussion when Nick Gallo, Annette Simmons, and Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel for this archive episode of Grappling with the Gray.Here is this episode's ethics challenge:A St. Louis man who lived in Germany for three decades under a false identity was sentenced in federal court yesterday to time served and three years of supervised release.After graduating high school in 1981, DeLeo Barner joined the military.  In 1984, he was dismissed from the military for "missing a readiness alert."Within three weeks of returning to the home of his youth, two of Barner's friends were shot dead on the streets of his neighborhood in St. Louis.  Many others were either dead or in prison.Wanting to rejoin the military and escape the violence of his neighborhood, Barner stole the identity of another St. Louis man and joined the army as Joel Sanders.  He was stationed in Berlin for many years until receiving a medical discharge in 1988.For three decades, he remained in Germany working for security firms there. He built a civilian life as Joel Sanders until 2018, when his ruse was discovered. At the time of his arrest, Barner had a German girlfriend and eight children, six of whom still reside in Berlin. He pled guilty to one count of fraud and was sentenced to time served, but the terms of his release prevent him from returning to his home in Germany and to his family, including his 13 year old daughter.Granted that he had been actively engaged in the crime of fraud for three decades, should the law take into account specific conditions of essentially victimless crimes committed in the distant past, or does the integrity of the legal system require accountability from offenders regardless of collateral damage?Meet this week’s panelists:Nick Gallo, aka the Ethics Evangelist, is CEO of Compliance Line, as well as creator and host of The Ethics Experts podcast.Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications.Annette Simmons is a speaker, trainer, consultant, and author of The Story Factor -- named one of the 100 Best Business Books of All Time.

If you get your work done in half the time, is the other half of your time really yours?That's the question that drives the discussion when Mark Brown, Deb Coviello, and Dr. Robyn Odegaard join the ethics panel for this archive episode of Grappling with the Gray.Here is our topic:In May, 2023, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner announced that she would resign from her position amidst charges of chronic mismanagement and neglect of duty. Among other allegations, local reporters discovered that Ms. Gardner had been taking classes in a full time nursing program during a staffing crisis in her office.In general, is it ethical to hold two full-time jobs at once? With advances in artificial intelligence, some workers claim that they can easily handle the demands of two, three, or four jobs without compromising their performance in any of them.Is it proper for individual employees to make such an assessment themselves? Even if it’s true at any particular moment, are those employees likely to relinquish one of those jobs (and its paycheck) if their workload increases and they have to cut corners?And even if they are getting all their work done competently, are they unethical for deceiving employers who don’t know about those second or third jobs? Or, if they are doing all the work they are being paid to do, is the remaining time in their day theirs to do with as they please? Is using unallotted time for another job any different from playing Candy Crush or surfing TikTok?Meet the panel:Mark Brown, CSP is a world champion speaker, an executive coach, and an artificial intelligence software advisor.Deb Coviello The Drop In CEO™ is an author, speaker, podcast host, and silver medalist curler who coaches C-Suite leaders of today and tomorrow to navigate challenges with confidence.Dr. Robyn Odegaard is known as the Mental MacGyver. She provides luxury level, high performance support and coaching to executives, founders, celebrities and athletes. She is also the creator and facilitator of the Quick Hits podcast.#ethics #bestpractices #companyculture #integrity #grappling

Should there be a presumption of privacy in public always, never, or sometimes?That's the question driving the discussion when Mark Brown, CSP, Mark O'Brien, and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join me to Grapple with the Gray!And here is our topic:In the wake of October 7, Columbia University has taken center stage amidst concerns about campus anti-Semitism. After a May 31 open forum addressing student safety and campus culture, three college deans were suspended for exchanging dismissive texts during the program. These included vomit emojis in reference to an op-ed by a campus rabbi and the suggestion that Jewish groups were exploiting the issue to boost fundraising revenues. Ironically, the dean who announced the suspensions was a fourth participant in the email exchanges for which the other three were suspended. He made no mention of his own involvement, but he did decry what he called an invasion of privacy by the unnamed individual who photographed the text messages from a row behind the deans.Does he have a point? Does this constitute an invasion of privacy? The photographer claimed in an op-ed, published anonymously because of fear of reprisal, that they considered it a moral imperative to report and publicize these remarks.What if the texts had been about private medical information? What if they had been about human trafficking? Those cases seem more black and white, and less gray. Or is the subject matter irrelevant since, perhaps, there is no presumption of privacy in a public place?Meet the panel:Mark Brown is a world champion international speaker, executive coach, artificial intelligence software advisor and, most important, devoted husband of his wife Andrea.Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs.Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications.#ethics #leadership #culture #accountability #grappling

How do we weigh quantifiable costs against intangible benefits? That's the question that drives the conversation when Catherine Fitzgerald, Sven Lauch, and Stewart Wiggins join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.A recent documentary about the Blue Angels profiles the extraordinary discipline required to fly fighter jets in formation a mere 12 - 18 inches apart from one another and perform a variety of other aerobatic stunts. The film portrays the dedication of the team and the eagerness of navy pilots to join their ranks to perform heart-stopping aerial stunts.However, heart-stopping may be a bit too descriptive, as nearly ten percent of Blue Angel pilots have died on the job since the team formed in 1946, most of them due to human error. The flying team was the brainchild of Admiral Chester Nimitz, who hoped that flying exhibitions would boost Navy morale while gaining public and political support for a larger defense budget.The airshows reportedly cost taxpayers $35 million dollars a year, consume massive amounts of fuel, seem to flout concerns about climate change, and produce deafening noise pollution. One columnist observed that the Blue Angel budget could feed all homeless veterans for over a month, and headlines occasionally appear about pilots protesting the danger of the maneuvers they are commanded to perform. Nevertheless, the performances remain tremendously popular.The arguments for the shows and against the shows are both entirely defensible. How do we evaluate intangibles like public and service member morale against quantifiable objections concerning cost, safety, and environmental impact? If we want to be completely practical, we should do away with holiday parades, NASCAR, and the NFL, shouldn’t we? Or should we?Meet this week’s panelists:Catherine Fitzgerald is a speaker, writer, certified coach, and founder of BrassTacksWithHeart - Business Advising. She works with founders and CEOs seeking to align their people, performance, and profits. as they navigate the choppy waters of scaling their thriving businesses. Sven Lauch comes to us from Plymouth, England. He is Director of Eyes Up Training Limited, which offers a holistic approach to implementing organizational change with emphasis on developing transferable skills that anyone can learn.Stewart Wiggins joins us from Paris. He is Chief Advisor at Induna Advisors, working to significantly increase company revenue by developing positive client reports and establishing solid business relationships.

Are the rich getting too much richer, and is there a limit to how much the poor will take?That's the question that will drive the conversation when Mark O'Brien, Jolanta Pomiotlo, and Kirsten Yurich join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our topic:According to a recent report, median pay packages for CEOs rose to $16.3 million through 2023, up 12.6%. Meanwhile, wages and benefits netted by private-sector workers rose 4.1%. At half the companies in this year’s survey, it would take the worker at the middle of the company’s pay scale almost 200 years to make what their CEO did.According to some metrics, the average CEO is earning 600 times more than the average employee. Back in the 60s, the ratio was about 50 to 1.Defenders of the steadily rising pay gap claim it is simple capitalism. CEOs responsible for company earnings are more in demand, therefore they command higher salaries. Others claim it is a symptom of crony capitalism: CEO board members vote one another higher salaries expecting reciprocity from their peers.Whatever the true reason, the disparity strikes many non-CEOs as patently unfair. They don’t expect the same salaries, but they might reasonably expect a proportionate rate of increase. The resulting resentment likely affects employee satisfaction and, consequently, productivity; and it also erodes trust and confidence in the system, potentially contributing to systemic instability.Is this a problem that needs to be addressed? If so, can it be addressed? If we rely on the government to enforce antitrust laws to guarantee fair practices, should the same apply with respect to salaries… or is there an intrinsic difference? How effective or consistent is government in ensuring an even playing field, and is there any alternative solution?Meet this week’s panelists:Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs.Jolanta Pomiolto is Vice President of Information Technology for EXSIF Worldwide who manages innovative initiatives aimed at reducing operating costs, improving profit, and growing revenue.Kirsten Yurich is an Organizational Performance Management Consultant, Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc., and Adjunct Professor of Education at Felician University.

Are we neglecting old relationships in hope of profiting from new ones?That's the question that drives the discussion when Jennifer H. Elder, CSP, CPA, Jim Ristuccia, and Jon Strickler join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our topic:Recently, I had enough of Charter Communications. My monthly fees kept going up, service got worse, and AT&T came around with faster service and a low rate locked in for 10 years. I signed up, then called Charter to cancel.Immediately, they offered to upgrade my service, and slash my monthly fees. When I demurred, they offered me discounted cell phone service and their firstborn child. Okay, I made up that last part.A few weeks later, I called the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to cancel my mother’s subscription after the price went up to $175/ month. Same story: Please stay and we’ll cut your fees by over 50%.The service industry is famous for offering special deals to attract new customers. But what about their old customers? Shouldn’t loyalty count for something? And don’t these special offers indicate that customers are paying more than they should be?Aren’t we better off living in a world where we cultivate loyalty rather than trying to seduce strangers to abandon long-standing relationships? Is this really the best way to do business, or would businesses do better in the long run working harder to retain the customers they have? And even if it is best for the bottom line, what is the social cost?Meet this week’s panelists:Jennifer Elder is a CPA and Certified Speaking Professional who helps leaders future-proof their businesses by making smart decisions and staying ethical.Jim Ristuccia is CEO Peer Advisory Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc., facilitating meaningful and impactful conversations to help leaders become the best version of themselves and grow their organizations.Jon Strickler is Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc. He is a West Point graduate and business consultant with operational experience at more than 40 companies across four continents, as well as a national champion mountain biker.

At what cost can we expect others to take responsibility for our own well being?That's the question that the ethics panel takes up when Giovanni Gallo, Nick Gallo, and Diane Helbig join me to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our topic:A woman posted online how she likes to bake more than she likes to eat. Although she typically shares her culinary creations with friends and family, on one occasion she asked and received permission to leave her leftovers in the common area of her apartment building with a note that anyone who wanted could help themselves.Over time, this developed into an informal tradition. Occasionally, other tenants put out their treats as well.And then it stopped. One day a neighbor knocked on the door and accused the baker of poisoning her son after she had to take the boy to the emergency room for an allergy attack because he ate a peanut butter brownie.The baker agreed to help pay for the hospital trip and stopped putting out her baked goods. When one neighbor asked why she had stopped, the baker recounted the story without mentioning the name of the mother who had complained.Subsequently , the mother returned. It seemed that the neighbors were upset with the mother and blamed her for stopping the availability of baked goods. She accused the baker of intentionally defaming her and said she would lodge a complaint with the landlord.Was the baker wrong for putting out the baked goods in the first place, or for sharing the story with a neighbor who was able to figure out which other party was involved? In general, how far does a community have to go to accommodate individual needs rather than expecting individuals to assume a higher level of responsibility for themselves and their families?Meet this week’s panelists:Diane Helbig is Chief Improvement Catalyzer at Helbig Enterprises, providing guidance and training to business owners and leaders around the world.Giovanni Gallo is an ethics enthusiast, compliance culturist, CTO and Co-CEO at Ethico, empowering leaders who care to manage risk, improve communication, reinforce culture, and establish ethical work environments.Nick Gallo, aka the Ethics Evangelist and Captain Culture, is creator and host of The Ethics Experts podcast. He is Chief Servant and Co-CEO of Ethico, as well as brother of Giovanni Gallo.

Is our confusion between panic and panacea leading us into social chaos?That's the question that underlines the conversation when Christopher Bauer, PhD, CSP, CFS, 🟦 Melissa Hughes, Ph.D., and Mary Beth Molloy join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our topic:Recently, Oprah Winfrey apologized for the part she played in promoting unhealthy and unrealistic diets.She said one of her “biggest regrets," is bringing out 67 pounds of animal fat onto her TV show stage in 1998 to illustrate how much weight she had recently lost. Indeed, throughout her career the media has never tired of reporting on her weight going up and down.On the one hand, multiple online health sites decry the harmful effects of “fat-shaming.” On the other hand, the CDC website highlights the need to “reverse the obesity epidemic” by encouraging community efforts to focus on supporting healthy eating and active living in a variety of settings.What are some other examples of mixed messages being broadcast throughout our society? In general, are we becoming simultaneously hypersensitive and hypercritical, whitewashing unhealthy or unattractive behavior while catastrophizing where those behaviors are leading us? If our culture perpetually waffles between underplaying and overreacting to the problems we need to address, how can leaders effectively promote positive change?Meet this week’s panelists:Christopher Bauer is a Speaker, Author, and Consultant on Ethics, Compliance, and Accountability.Melissa Hughes is Founder and Principal of the Andrick Group, applying recent brain research to improve employee engagement, company culture, team dynamics, and innovation.Mary Beth Molloy is a Certified Executive Coach. She is President of MBM Elevate, CEO Group Chair of Vistage Worldwide, Inc., and national board member of Per Scholas, a nonprofit that provides no-cost technical training to individuals often excluded from tech careers.#ethics #culture #perspective #values #grappling

Do we prevent ourselves from getting anything by trying to get everything?That's the question that underlies the discussion when Jeff Koziatek, 🟦 Mark O'Brien, and Annette Taylor join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our scenario:On May 1st, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill prohibiting the production and sale of lab-grown meat. When I read the headline, I couldn’t help wondering why.It seems that Bill Gates, a heavy investor in the industry, has publicly urged governments to enact legislation to shift toward 100% synthetic meat and eventually ban real meat. The Florida law represents a backlash against corporate and government overreach that attempts to limit personal choice and control private conduct.The irony, or course, is that by outlawing synthetic meat altogether, the legislation does exactly what it is designed to prevent.So who bears most of the blame here? Advocates for social engineering who seek to control behavior and limit choice, or the government for overreacting when it could just as easily have passed a bill guaranteeing free access to and availability of natural meat?In general, how many movements either self-destruct or produce needless controversy by inciting conflict rather than seeking principled compromise? Why do so many leaders seem incapable of recognizing that gradual implementation of innovative ideas is a far more effective way of producing positive change?Meet this week’s panelists:Jeff Koziatek is a certified speaker and peak performance coach, helping professionals to navigate change, sharpen focus, avoid burnout, and make a difference. He is also one of St. Louis Business Monthly's 100 St. Louisans you should know.Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs.Annette Taylor is a researcher of evolutionary psychology and biology. Her website, Cavedweller Club, offers guidance and insights on how we can better understand the way our own hardwiring influences unconscious bias and decision making.#ethics #communication #values #negotiation #leadership

When do some people's problems become everybody's problems?That's the question driving the conversation when 🟦 Jeff Ikler, Sarah Kalmeta, and S. Scott Mason join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.Here is our topic:“With the stroke of his pen,” said Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, “Joe Biden is attempting to saddle working Missourians with a half trillion dollars in college debt."On the one hand, college debt poses an enormous burden, especially for young people just entering the workforce. Freeing them from that weight will relieve tremendous stress and pressure as they try to establish themselves professionally.On the other hand, many students chose to major in subjects that offer no clear career pathway. Is it not their fault, or their parents’ fault, or their educational institution’s fault that they now face economic hardship? In any event, why should that responsibility be transferred to taxpayers?And what about those who have been dutifully paying back their loans for years? Why should they be excluded? NYU recently announced free medical school, but my recently graduated daughter in law didn’t qualify, which she thinks is horribly unfair.My wife took out loans for her teachers certification and masters programs, which were eventually forgiven because of her choice of career. Are those who work in some form of public service more deserving of forgiveness than others?Without getting into the weeds of presidential or congressional authority, can we reasonably defend the well-intentioned initiative of tuition forgiveness against claims that it unfairly and unequally shifts the burden from students onto the wider population?Meet this week’s panelists:Jeff Ikler is Director of Quetico Executive Career and Personal Leadership Coaching, host of the podcast Getting Unstuck—Cultivating Curiosity, and co-host of the podcast Cultivating Resilience: A Whole Community Approach to Alleviating Trauma in Schools.Sarah Kalmeta, aka Sarah the Pivoter, is a speaker, author and relentless truthseeker. She is founder of Pivot Point International, a high performance consulting company.Scott Mason, aka the Myth Slayer, is a speaker, podcast host, and coach working with executives and entrepreneurs to Magnetize & Monetize Professional Freedom by Dislodging Toxic Myths to Ignite the Charisma Within.#ethics #education #culture #accountability #grappling

Is doing the wrong thing ever the right thing?That classic ethical question underscores the conversation when Kimberly Davis, Peter Winick, and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.True story:An elderly Jewish man with late stage cancer was given only a few weeks to live by his doctors. His final wish was to spend his last days in Israel and be buried there, so he booked a flight and made arrangements for hospice care when he arrived.A woman affiliated with the hospice organization volunteered to accompany him to the airport to ensure that he safely boarded his flight. However, when they arrived at the counter, the gate agent looked at the gentleman, immediately took note of his frail appearance, and declared that it was unsafe for him to fly, denying him permission to board the plane.After several unsuccessful attempts to convince the agent to reconsider, the woman took off her string of pearls, handed them to the agent, and said they were his if he let the man board the flight, which he did. The woman did not ask for any compensation from the elderly passenger, who never even learned her last name. He boarded the plane and never heard from her again.Was the woman a hero for sacrificing her precious necklace, or was she a criminal for bribing the gate agent? Was the gate agent being overly officious, or simply following protocol? Were the airline restrictions too strict, too ambiguous, or entirely reasonable to avoid a mid-air emergency?Meet this week’s panelists:Kimberly Davis is an author, TEDx speaker, and founder of the Brave Leadership University, leading development programs world-wide, around authentic leadership, purpose, presence, and influence.Peter Winick works with individuals and organizations to build and grow revenue streams through their thought leadership platforms and is host of the Leveraging Thought Leadership podcast.Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications.#ethics#culture#compassion#perspective#grappling

What happens when we sabotage our own efforts to promote values by sending contradictory messages?That's the ethics challenge the panel takes up when Natalia Alvarez, Ph.D., JC Glick, and Lovelda Vincenzi join me to Grapple with the Gray.A teacher at the private Girls’ Day School Trust in the UK was recently ordered to apologize and subsequently told her contract would not be renewed after her class of 11-year-old students protested that her comments were offensive.Her crime: Addressing the class with the words, “Good Afternoon, Girls.” Apparently, the students complained that the teacher “misgendered” them, since not all of them identify as female.The school website states the following:“The Girls’ Day School Trust is the UK’s leading family of 25 independent girls’ schools including two academies. In all of our schools, academic excellence is a given – at the GDST we develop character beyond the curriculum.“Ensuring our girls are confident and fearless, determined to show what they can do. Nothing holds our girls back – they’re encouraged to embrace every role and subject. This is the GDST Difference.”Without getting into the topic of gender identity, is there something incongruous about a self-named girls day school referring to students as “girls” on its own website while disciplining a teacher for calling students “girls”? Is the school indulging a double standard that undermines its educational integrity, or is there some justification for the distinction?If character development is an educational value, shouldn’t that involve addressing grievances in a non-confrontational and non-punitive way? Would the school serve its students better by modeling how to resolve differences of belief and opinion through civil discourse rather than combativeness?Finally, how else might the school administration have addressed student complaints?#ethics #education #culture #leadership #grappling

This is one of my all time favorite conversations.  Enjoy this episode from the archives!Here is our topic:About five years ago, I was driving home from Dallas, Texas, when I pulled up to a toll booth in Oklahoma. Being somewhat directionally challenged, I told the attendant that I was turning west, thereby exempting myself from the toll of $2.50. When I reached the turnoff, however, I realized that I needed to go east, but there was no way of getting back to correct my error without a complicated and time consuming detour.That error remained on my mind, and it seemed proper to mail a check to the Oklahoma department of transportation. However, I only seemed to remember that I needed to correct the error when I was in no position to do anything about it.Last week, I was once again driving back from Dallas. I told the toll booth attendant that on my last trip I had mistakenly said west when I meant east and that I wanted to pay double. She told me not to worry about it and waved me through.Did the attendant have the authority to turn down my offer to pay for my previous mistake? Should I have insisted she take the extra fee? What if it would have cost her extra effort to process my payment? Should I still send a check to the Oklahoma department of transportation?In general, what attitude should we adopt toward small, unintentional errors that might cost more to correct than the loss or damage we originally caused?Meet this week's panelists:JC Glick is a retired Army Ranger Lieutenant Colonel. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as an author and TEDx speaker.Sarah Kalmeta aka Sara the Pivoter, is founder of Pivot Point, a career transition coach, author, and podcast host.S. Scott Mason, aka the Myth Slayer, is a speaker, podcast host, and coach working with executives and entrepreneurs to Magnetize & Monetize Professional Freedom by Dislodging Toxic Myths to Ignite the Charisma Within.#ethics #society #culture #mindset #grappling