Grappling with the Gray

How far can we stretch truth in advertising? That's the question that drives the conversation when Christopher Bauer, PhD, CSP, CFS, Nancy J. Capistran, PCC, CPC, and S. Scott Mason join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our ethics challenge: In Paducah, Kentucky, neighbors called police reporting a 9-year-old who set up a roadside stand in front of his house. He held up a sign advertising not lemonade by “Ice Cold Beer.” Officers arrived to find young Colton Ray proudly handing out frosty mugs of root beer, grinning like a kid who just discovered capitalism. “I just wanted people to stop and buy some root beer,” Colton explained. “And boy, did they!” Local officers applauded the creativity, and sales reportedly tripled after the incident. Colton told reporters he’s considering a lemonade spin-off next, under the banner: “Locally Sourced Moonshine.” His parents are both proud and slightly terrified. This story appeared recently in the Paducah Insider, a news satire and parody publication modeled after the Onion and the Babylon Bee. But what if the story had been true? Was the ad for cold beer deceptive, or did it merely omit enough information and allow people to draw their own conclusions? When we intentionally blur the lines governing truth in advertising, is that just good business, or does it cross the lines into misrepresentation? What other insights might we find in the apocryphal story of young Colton Ray? Meet the panel: Christopher Bauer is a Speaker, Author, and Consultant on Ethics, Compliance, and Accountability. Nancy Capistran is an executive coach, CEO strategic advisor, internationally published author, and Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc. 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 #culture #accountability #leadership #communication

How can we explain toxic trends in opposite directions? That's the question that drives the conversation when Kimberly Davis, Jennifer Hyland, and Peter Winick join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: In this week’s headlines, Inc.com highlighted a viral April 12 post that described the Robert W. Baird investment bank as “The Epitome of a Sweatshop.” In response, the Wall Street Journal reported bosses bullying into working 110-hour weeks, ignoring the firm’s no-work-on-Saturday policy, and sending emails at 3:30 am to check that employees were still online. As far back as 2017, Inc.com columnist Jacob Morgan ranked Baird third on his list of companies with the lowest-scoring employee experience. The WSJ reported that such practices in the industry routinely contribute to serious health problems and have even been linked to employee deaths. Ironically, but not surprisingly, bosses at Baird frequently complain about low productivity. The same news feed included an article in Forbes describing the rise of “snow-plow” managers who refuse to delegate, thereby contributing to their own stress, isolation, and burnout while disempowering and demoralizing employees. It seems bizarre to witness the simultaneous rise of two such antithetical trends. What they do have in common, however, is bosses pursuing practices that so clearly run counter to their own best interests as well as those of the company. How can we explain the rise of such disparate lose-lose behaviors? And what can be done to put a stop to them? Meet the panel: Kimberly Davis is an author, TEDx speaker, and founder of Brave Leadership, leading development programs world-wide, around authentic leadership, purpose, presence, and influence. Jennifer Hyland serves as Deputy Chief Constable with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. She is an advisor and mentor dedicated to a future built on a foundation of principled leadership. 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 #leadership #culture #accountability #mindset

What happens when employees perceive a scalpel as an axe? That's the question that drives the conversation when Tom Gegax joins me to Grapple with the Gray and Kirsten Yurich sits in as cohost. Here is our topic: Employee performance, especially in large companies, is likely to follow the bell curve. A few superstars, a lot of solid performers, and a few underperformers. Amazon has developed an innovative way of dealing with the third group: it’s called the Pivot Program. Employees who do not meet management performance expectations are given three options: 1) Leave with a severance package. 2) Accept entry into the Pivot program to help them “improve” and remain at Amazon. 3) If they fail to convince their manager that they have “improved,” then they can appeal. At each stage the worker is offered a progressively lower severance payment in return for a release of claims and promise not to sue. The consensus on Reddit is that the Pivot program is designed to coerce employees to quit while fabricating evidence to defend firing them if they don’t. It is described as humiliating for employees who go through it and toxic for employees who fear they might have to. The claim is that employees rarely, or never, pass the program. Certainly, companies need to have some process for dealing with employees who are not meeting expectations. Is Amazon’s model intrinsically flawed, or are underperforming employees merely bitter? In general, how can leaders preserve employee dignity while maintaining performance standards? On this special episode, I'm joined by Tom Gegax, former CEO of Tires Plus, Chairman of Gramercy Fund--a socially responsible venture capital fund--and focus of the film ‘Confessions of a CEO’: Blowing the Whistle on Corporate America,’ which features Robert Kennedy Jr., Deepak Chopra, and Blue Zones founder Dan Buettner. Described as a pioneer, a renaissance man, and a real life Forest Gump, Tom narrates his personal transformation from a toxic CEO to a visionary leader advocating for healthier company culture and more responsible leadership in business and government. His campaign for personal responsibility and corporate accountability made him irresistible to me, and I feel privileged to have him as a guest. As you will hear, Tom has vocal chord damage from radiation treatment for cancer. But his message is too important to let that get in the way. 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 #leadership #culture #accountability #mindset

How much does the government need to know to do its job? That's the question that drives the conversation when Krista Crawford, Ph.D., MBA, SPHR, Sarah Kalmeta, and Jolanta Pomiotlo join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. And here is our topic: Paul Whelan, a 55-year-old retired U.S. Marine, was freed from Russia last summer after being imprisoned on false espionage charges for more than five years. After the first year of his detention, his employer cut his job and his insurance coverage. When he finally arrived home, Mr. Whelan found that he did not qualify for unemployment because he had not worked in Michigan recently. A member of Congress had to contact Michigan's secretary of state just for Mr. Whelan to get a driver's license and identification. And being convicted of a crime in Russia, even a crime the U.S. government declared was bogus, hindered his getting a Global Entry card because he was arrested and imprisoned overseas. Apparently, Customs and Border Patrol didn’t have access to the pictures of the president meeting him at Andrews Air Force Base when he came back. Strangest of all, when Mr. Whelan tried to get full Medicaid coverage through the state he received a letter back saying that he didn't qualify because he wasn't a U.S. citizen. And his story is not unique. NPR seemed to miss the irony when they aired this story on March 27, scarcely two minutes before a story questioning why the Department of Government Efficiency needs access to citizens’ private data and personal information. Ostensibly, DOGE is charged with scouring government records for signs of waste, fraud and abuse… not to mention inefficiency. Might Paul Whelan reasonably argue that protecting our data is no more urgent than ensuring that government agencies make better use of that data to serve U.S. citizens? There’s always going to be tension between protecting personal freedoms and providing for the general welfare. Is it possible to balance one against the other without descending into partisan politics? Meet this week’s panel: Krista Crawford is a human resource consultant, adjunct instructor at Virginia Tech and Champlain College, and Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc. 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. Jolanta Pomiotlo is Vice President of Information Technology for EXSIF Worldwide who manages innovative initiatives aimed at reducing operating costs, improving profit, and growing revenue. #ethics #culture #accountability #leadership #politics

When the problem is always someone else's fault, is there any hope of finding a solution? That's the question that drives the conversation when Deb Coviello The Drop In CEO™, Diane Helbig, and ☘️Mark O'Brien join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: A recent headline in Politico declared: “Republicans have hated universities for years. Anti-war protests gave them a reason to punish them.” We can debate the merit of conservative criticisms of American universities. But headlines like this one do nothing to advance civil discourse or productive debate by suggesting those criticisms have no basis. In 2015, video maker Ami Horowitz collected 50 signatures in an hour on Yale campus calling for the repeal of the First Amendment… which includes, ironically, the right to petition. This was not long after a Yale administrator was fired for daring to suggest that students should be trusted to choose appropriate Halloween costumes without faculty supervision. The following year, University of Chicago Dean John Ellison wrote in letter to students: "Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial and we do not condone the creation of intellectual safe spaces where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own." Unfortunately, his has been a nearly lone voice in the wilderness. Especially since October 7, a horrifying rise in antisemitic rhetoric and violence has made university campus spaces anything but safe for Jewish students. Even if one disapproves of responses by the Trump administration, casting Republicans as perpetrators while ignoring legitimate, systemic problems will only intensify polarization and extremism. How do we explain increasing unwillingness to confront issues honestly? And what can we do about it? Meet this week’s panel: 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. 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. #ethics #culture #accountability #leadership #education #media

Which is worse: conscious bias or unconscious bias? That's the question that drives the conversation when Paul Glover, 🟦 Melissa Hughes, Ph.D., and Annette Taylor join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: On March 10th, Washington Post columnist and Associate Editor Ruth Marcus resigned after four decades with the paper. She accused Chief Executive and Publisher Will Lewis of killing her column criticizing owner Jeff Bezos' announcement that the opinion section will henceforth only publish views consistent with the values of individual liberties and free markets. For years, conservatives have condemned large metropolitan newspapers for liberal bias. But those objections were against political ideology creeping into hard news stories, and also for misrepresentation of facts in support of opinion. Not for the opinions themselves. The original intent of the op-ed page was to present alternative views to those of a paper’s own editorial perspective, thereby promoting integrity of thought and advancing spirited debate. This new policy of Jeff Bezos appears to be yet another example of backlash and reactionaryism, objecting so fiercely that objectors become the object of their own objections. In 2017, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran an editorial responding to claims of bias by declaring, “Yes, we are biased, and that’s the way it should be.” I responded in a letter that opinion and bias are two entirely different things. I received a two-line reply stating, essentially, “No, we’re right and you’re wrong.” So, is there a difference between opinion and bias? Do newspapers have an obligation to present opposing viewpoints? And who should set editorial policy: the owner, the publisher, the editor-in-chief, or an editorial board? Meet this week’s panel: Paul Glover is the No B.S. Leadership Coach - Guiding Leaders on Their Journey to Their Mountaintop. He is a TEDx speaker and author of Work Quake: Making the Seismic Shift to a "Knowledge Economy" Melissa Hughes is Founder and Principal of the Andrick Group, applying recent brain research to improve employee engagement, company culture, team dynamics, and innovation. 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 #leadership #culture #accountability #mindset

How can we explain society simultaneously becoming insensitive and hypersensitive? That's the question that drives the conversation when Mark Brown, CSP, Kimberly Davis, and Kirsten Yurich join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic A recent article in National Review by Kayla Bartsch laments how the concept of RSVP has died an ignominious death among her fellow Gen Z-ers. She writes: “Whereas stories of old emphasized the importance of honesty and integrity — of the sanctity of giving one’s word — these old-fashioned virtues of gentility are largely lost on my digital generation when it comes to RSVPs.” The truth is, responding to invitations should be easier than ever. Even if the younger set relates to email the way Boomers think of quill and parchment, platforms like Evite and Paperless Post have been superseded by a snazzy app called Partiful. But that doesn’t seem to help. My only quibble with Ms. Bartsch is that I don’t believe this is exclusively a Gen-Z problem or that it’s limited to invitations. Ghosting has become normative behavior in both the social and business worlds. If I have nothing to gain by communicating with you, you simply cease to exist. Ironically, amidst a culture that has become hyper-fixated on microaggressions, pronouns, and myriad sensitivities to other people’s feelings, how do we explain the lack of basic civility that makes it okay to ignore our fellow human beings, even the ones who care enough to invite us to share their lives? Meet this week’s panel: Mark Brown is an executive speaking coach, helping top international leaders to elevate their performance, influence and impact. He is a world champion international speaker, and devoted husband of Andrea. 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. 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 #culture #accountability #leadership #communication

Is justice served if you talk your way out of court? That's the question that drives the conversation when Christopher Bauer, PhD, CSP, CFS, Jennifer H. Elder, CSP, CPA, and Jeff Koziatek join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: Jewish folklore tells of a poor man who finds a billfold with $700 in it. At his synagogue, he reads on the notice board that a wealthy congregant has lost his billfold and is offering a $100 reward for it. He spots the owner and gives him the billfold. The rich man counts the money and says, “I see you already took your reward.” The poor man answers, “I don’t understand.” “This billfold had $800 in it when I lost it. Now it’s a hundred short.” They begin arguing, and eventually come before the rabbi. Both congregants state their case. The rich man concludes by saying, “Rabbi, I trust you believe me.” The rabbi answers, “Of course.” The rich man smiles. The poor man is crushed. Then the rabbi hands the billfold to the poor man. “What are you doing?!” cries the rich man. The rabbi answers, “You are, of course, an honest man, and you say the billfold you lost had $800 in it. Therefore, I’m sure it did. But if the man who found this billfold is a liar and a thief, he wouldn’t have returned it at all. That means he also is telling the truth. In that case, this billfold must belong to somebody else. If that man steps forward, he’ll get the money. Until then, it belongs to the man who found it.” “But what about my money?” the rich man asks. “Well, we’ll just have to wait until somebody finds a billfold with $800 in it…” What are we to make of the rabbi’s ruling? Meet this week’s panel: Christopher Bauer is a Speaker, Author, and Consultant on Ethics, Compliance, and Accountability. Jennifer Elder is a CPA and Certified Speaking Professional who helps leaders future-proof their businesses by making smart decisions and staying ethical. 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.

Are we engineering our way toward disaster? That's the question that drives the conversation when Catherine Fitzgerald, Stewart Wiggins, and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: The tragic air crash of January 29 over Washington, DC, followed two days later by a second crash over Philadelphia, has left us all feeling both heartbroken and decidedly less safe. According to the Associated Press, National Transportation Safety Board member Todd Inman expressed frustration that accidents like these occur, noting that the board has made “several hundred” recommendations to improve aviation that have not been acted upon. Understaffing may have contributed to the disaster. The FAA has long struggled with a shortage of air traffic controllers. Responding to reports that the helicopter was flying 100 feet higher than regulations allow, President Donald Trump declared that diversity initiatives have left air traffic control understaffed and underqualified, thereby compromising air safety. According to some reports, airlines have indeed lowered standards to meet a pilot shortage. Others argue that the shortage of applicants has nothing to do with DEI. Either way, there does seem to be a looming crisis concerning air travel safety. And it’s not only pilots. Police, firefighting, healthcare work, and teaching are all facing potential staffing shortages. Reasons include poor pay, unsafe working conditions, and unreasonable demands on the job. The problem seems obvious, and the potential consequences seem clear. So what are we doing about it? Is it possible that DEI is a contributing factor? Even if it is, is the topic so polarizing that it interferes with our addressing other root causes that won’t be dealt with because of political acrimony? Meet this week’s panel: Catherine Fitzgerald is a speaker, writer, certified coach, and founder of BrassTacksWithHeart - Executive Coaching. She works with founders and their leaders as they navigate the choppy waters of aligning people, performance, and profits. 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. 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 #accountability #leadership

When we know what the problem is and we know how to fix it, why isn't it getting fixed? That's the question that drives the conversation when Sam Ardery, ☘️Mark O'Brien, and Kelly Paxton - Pink Collar Crime Expert join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: The horror of California wildfires has seized attention all across the country. Over 40,000 acres burned, over 12,000 homes and buildings destroyed, two dozen deaths, families displaced, and lives shattered. Adding to the tragedy is how many of the homes lost were uninsured. The combination of over-valued real estate in high risk areas and government imposed premium caps compelled many insurance carriers to cancel homeowner policies, in some cases just a week before the fires ravaged the county. Those seeking to cast blame have pointed to systemic water and forestry mismanagement, as well as Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass approving $18 million in cuts to the fire department budget. What seems not to have been a factor was the government’s policy of diverting water to protect endangered fish. The reports of dumping water into the ocean when it could have been used for agriculture sparked considerable debate earlier this year. But this apparently contributed in no way to the current crisis, despite the claims of Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris reportedly condemned insurance companies for refusing to honor current policies, a claim that seems equally unfounded. The first order of business is fighting the fires, protecting those in danger, and supporting the victims in rebuilding their lives. After that, however, the question becomes how to prevent future tragedies. Considering how these fires are becoming more and more frequent, why have the root causes not been better addressed? Just as bad, what are we to make of well-intentioned policies that make matters worse? What drives leaders to ignore the real issues while disseminating misinformation? And what should we be doing about it? Meet this week’s panel: 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. 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. Kelly Paxton is a Certified Fraud Examiner, former Private Investigator, Professional Speaker, Podcast Host, and author of Embezzlement: How to Prevent, Detect and Investigate Pink-Collar Crime. #ethics #leadership #accountability #culture #mindset

It’s been said that history is written by the winners. Today, however, history is more likely to be written by ideologues. This is the issue that drives the discussion when 🟦 Jeff Ikler, S. Scott Mason, and • Sue Tinnish, PhD join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: On one extreme, self-styled patriots seek to whitewash the human elements of heroic figures by censoring faults and flaws. On the other extreme, historical revisionists cast heroes as villains and villains as heroes. Instructors also have to contend with the severely limited time they have to teach the highlights of history to students who struggle to appreciate its relevance to their lives. One popular biography of Ulysses S. Grant provides depth and texture to a little-studied president. But the work glosses over Grant’s drinking problem and his culpability for the Whiskey Ring scandal rather than confronting these head on. Then there’s the 1619 Project, which makes the spurious claim that the United States was founded primarily to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Trumpeted by the New York Times, it was scorchingly repudiated by an expose in the Atlantic, which questioned whether the architects of the project were merely incompetent or willfully misrepresentative. And yet it is still taught in many schools. Granted that history is not fully knowable and subject to multifarious interpretations, what steps can and should we take to provide the most comprehensive and balanced accounts possible to preserve the integrity of our collective past? And how does our willingness to rewrite the past affect other aspects of our lives? Meet this week’s panel: Jeff Ikler is a certified executive career coach. He is director of Quetico Executive Career and Personal Leadership Coaching and co-host of the podcast Getting Unstuck – Educators Leading Change 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. Sue Tinnish is an executive coach, employing a unique blend of soft skills and technical knowledge, as well as a Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc. #ethics #education #culture #accountabililty #leadership

Is the long arm of the law too long or not long enough? That's the question that drives the conversation when the ethics panel convenes with Krista Crawford, Ph.D., MBA, SPHR, Diane Helbig, and Peter Winick to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: Last week, Australia made world headlines by passing legislation to ban social media use for children under 16 years old. Many support the intent of the law, which seeks to protect children from the various ills associated with online use, including cyberbullying, invasion of privacy, depression, and addictive behavior. However, the new law raises a slew of ethical questions. To what degree can platform providers ensure who is or isn’t using their platform? Much of the burden of enforcement will inevitably fall on parents, who may be struggling on many fronts with the stresses of raising teenagers. Would they be subject to prosecution for allowing their own children access? Is this different from prohibition, or past laws against using marijuana? Libertarians might advocate for removing all such laws, including heroin and prostitution? Does the government have the right to make these kinds of decisions for the people? Is it ultimately beneficial to pass laws that may be unenforceable? On the one hand, it may drive usage underground and limit it from becoming normalized. On the other hand, doesn’t passing laws likely to be violated undermine general respect for the law? There’s a certain dark irony in China rigidly limiting access of children to social media and, in particular, TikTok, while providing access to the rest of the world. Do we have to become like China to protect ourselves from China? Or do we simply give in to the inevitable and hope for the best? Meet this week’s panel: Krista Crawford is a human resource consultant, adjunct instructor at Virginia Tech and Champlain College, and Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc. Diane Helbig is Chief Improvement Catalyzer at Helbig Enterprises, providing guidance and training to business owners and leaders around the world. 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.

Have the critics of Cancel Culture turned on their own? That's the question that drives the conversation when Deb Coviello The Drop In CEO™, 🟦 Melissa Hughes, Ph.D., and Jolanta Pomiotlo join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: FOX NFL Sunday’s special in honor of Veteran’s Day unleashed a firestorm of controversy when New York Giants legend and Fox commentator Michael Strahan failed to put his hand on his heart during the National Anthem–although he was standing respectfully throughout. The son of a 23-year army veteran, Mr. Strahan later explained that he was “caught up in the moment… looking at all these young sailors standing there at attention before the National Anthem played, and I’m thinking to myself how incredible [it is] to be that young.” Friends from all corners have defended him as a patriot. Nevertheless, in the days that followed, Mr. Strahan has been accused of being unpatriotic, shameful, a disgrace, and hating America, with many have called for him to be fired from his job. From the time the Pledge of Allegiance was introduced in 1892, etiquette required you to raise your right hand, flip your palm down, and point it toward the flag in a gesture not unlike the Nazi salute. With the rise of fascism in Europe, the U.S. Flag Code of 1942 dispensed with the salute and substituted placing the hand over the heart. Almost as an afterthought, the Code included placing that hand over the heart for the National Anthem as well. However, common practice seems more concerned with standing respectfully and less concerned with where you place your hands. In September, 2007, President Barack Obama was accused of not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. Fact-checkers rushed to his defense: apparently, he did have his hand over his heart for the Pledge, then lowered it during the National Anthem. If that was an acceptable answer for the president, why not for Michael Strahan? Have we become hypersensitive since Colin Kaepernick first took a knee rather than standing? Or is this just another case of cancel culture gone amok? Meet this week’s panel: 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. Melissa Hughes is Founder and Principal of the Andrick Group, applying recent brain research to improve employee engagement, company culture, team dynamics, and innovation. Jolanta Pomiotlo is Vice President of Information Technology for EXSIF Worldwide who manages innovative initiatives aimed at reducing operating costs, improving profit, and growing revenue.

Is having the right words enough, or could it be part of the problem? That's the question that drives the conversation when Sarah Kalmeta, 🟦 Mark O'Brien, and Kirsten Yurich join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: For those of us will be grateful when elections are over regardless of who has won or lost, here are a few recent non-partisan headlines. From Inc.com: Science Says People With High Emotional Intelligence Use This Sentence to Instantly Turn a Painful Argument Into a Productive Conversation From Your Tango: The Secret Word That Makes Men Commit Almost Instantly, According To A Relationship Expert From CNBC: Use this perfect 3-word response when someone hurts your feelings What motivates these kinds of stories? Are they teaching us to employ neuro-linguistic programming to improve the quality of our lives, or are they merely teaching us how to manipulate others? Do they intend to help us develop our awareness and sensitivity toward other people, or are they quick-fixes so that we don’t have to expend the effort it takes to become genuinely sensitive? Or maybe they’re nothing more than click-bait. Sometimes, we need someone to hold our hand and walk us through the step by step until we can do it on our own. Other times, hand-holding becomes a crutch that discourages us from taking responsibility for our own actions and decisions. Are these types of articles a necessary remediation for a society that has become increasingly needed, or are they contributing to an increasingly shallow and irresponsible culture? And if they are, what’s a better approach? Meet this week’s panel: 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. 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. Kirsten Yurich is an Organizational Performance Management Consultant, Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc., and Adjunct Professor of Education at Felician University.

When both sides are wrong, who's right? That's the question that drives the conversation when Amii Barnard-Bahn, JD, PCC, CCEP, Kimberly Davis, and Mary Beth Molloy join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: A recent article in Newsweek reported that 83 percent of Gen Z frontline workers are feeling overwhelmed and burnt out, with a third of those considering quitting their jobs. Earlier this month, however, Forbes, Inc.com, and Euro News all ran stories about employers firing their Gen Z employees. The reasons include lack of motivation, poor communication skills, and lack of commitment to the job. For their part, younger workers want to feel a sense of purpose at work and want to have a life outside of work. All of which creates a kind of standoff. As much as we actively promote work-life balance, it appears that many employers from the older generation don’t really appreciate employees who demand it. On the other hand, if our culture is intended to be a meritocracy, why should employers invest in workers who justify their own lack of work ethic because they claim to feel unfulfilled in their jobs? An ethical culture is built on principled compromise, communication, commitment, and reasonable expectations. Can older employers and younger employees find a way to meet in the middle, or is this a case where the unstoppable force has met the immovable object? Meet this week’s panel: Amii Barnard-Bahn is a C-suite Coach & Consultant, specializing in Ethical Workplace Culture and Leadership. 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. 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.

It seemed like a good idea at the time. But why? That's the question that drives the conversation when Catherine Fitzgerald, Steven Smith, and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: One of the underlying principles of ethics is that trust forms the foundation of successful relationships and healthy communities. This simple idea explains why team building exercises have become so popular among HR departments. What it doesn’t explain is why these exercises are so hated among employees. Unfortunately, some of these activities seem designed to sow discord rather than unity. One reported exercise instructed each member to take a swig of soda then spit it into another member’s mouth. Strangely enough, some employees refused to participate. Another activity required each person to go around the room and tell everyone else what they didn’t like about them. One participant described the result as cascades of tears and mutual loathing. And just this past August, an employee was left behind by coworkers hiking in the Colorado mountains and spent the night exposed to high winds and freezing rain before rescue teams found him the next morning. We all get wacky ideas from time to time, but how do we explain the lack of a vetting process, competent decision-making, and executive accountability that all have to coalesce to produce these kinds of horror stories? And how do we go about fixing a problem that’s so obvious that it shouldn’t be a problem in the first place? Meet this week’s panel: Catherine Fitzgerald is a speaker, writer, certified coach, and founder of BrassTacksWithHeart - Executive Coaching. She works with founders and their leaders as they navigate the choppy waters of aligning people, performance, and profits. Steve Smith is president of Great Castle Partners, Inc, group chair for Vistage Worldwide Inc, and business builder of cloud based, supply chain solutions for distribution and specialty retail industries 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 #accountability #leadership #grappling

Do two wrongs make a right? How about one-and-a-half wrongs? That's the question that drives the conversation when Mark Herschberg, Sven Lauch, and Stewart Wiggins join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: Late last year, a senior German policeman was convicted of threatening a suspect with torture to extract information about the whereabouts of an abducted boy. Wolfgang Daschner received a warning instead of jail time, in addition to a fine of about $18,000. Although many Germans sided with Daschner for choosing the lesser of two evils, the presiding judge, Barbel Stock, said that, "Respect for human rights is a foundation of our constitutional state ... Information cannot be forced from someone even if one is seeking to avert danger." Amnesty International welcomed the verdict, saying it upheld an absolute ban on the use of torture, and Germany's police union said the ruling was understandable. The case has particular resonance in Germany, where the Gestapo and the Stasi routinely trampled on detainees' rights during the Third Reich and under Soviet style government. Daschner's defense was partly based on his view at the time that the abducted boy might still have been alive, and that the suspect had to be made to talk to find the victim. Tragically, the suspect had already murdered the boy, although he did lead police to the body. The police's interrogation tactics, once they came to light, threatened to derail the trial, although ultimately, the defendant was sentenced to life in prison. Whether torture is excusable to exact information that might save lives has been a particularly hot topic of debate since 9/11. But what are the ethical angles involved in the threat of torture? Meet this week’s panel: Mark Herschberg is Chief Technology Officer and Chief Product Officer of Zereo.ai. He is a professional speaker and creator of Brain Bump, a free app that helps consumers of non-fiction content better access and retain what they learn. 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. #ethics #culture #values #greatergood #grappling

What price do we pay for convenience? That's the question that drives the conversation when Christopher Bauer, PhD, CSP, CFS, Jennifer H. Elder, CSP, CPA, and Paul Glover join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: Is Amazon taking over the world? It certainly seems that way, especially after Jeff Bezos bought his half a billion dollar sailing yacht. I have no problem with people making money honestly and spending it as they wish. But the stories coming out of Amazon are deeply disturbing. Working conditions have been questioned and high turnover is reportedly part of the business plan. Policies make it easy for the customer but prove onerous for retailers, who end up with razor slim profit margins and are seemingly with no option but to comply if they want to compete in the marketplace. Presumably, these assertions have merit, since the company has been sued by the FTC for antitrust violations and stands accused of bullying partners and vendors. There are a number of alternatives to online shopping, such as Etsy, bookshop.com, Uncommongoods, and Shopify, as well as online ordering from Costco, Walmart, and Target. But Amazon is so darn easy and convenient. That’s why I keep using it. So I’m calling myself out. If I find Amazon’s business conduct odious, do I have any good excuse for using it? Or am I just being lazy? Meet this week’s panel: Christopher Bauer is a Speaker, Author, and Consultant on Ethics, Compliance, and Accountability. Jennifer Elder is a CPA and Certified Speaking Professional who helps leaders future-proof their businesses by making smart decisions and staying ethical. Paul Glover is the No B.S. Leadership Coach - Guiding Leaders on Their Journey to Their Mountaintop. He is a TEDx speaker and author of Work Quake: Making the Seismic Shift to a "Knowledge Economy"

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