Grappling with the Gray

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

When does fun and games become deceitful manipulation? That's the topic the ethics panel takes up when Paul Edwards, Catherine Fitzgerald, and Frank Zaccari join me to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: A husband and wife are sitting on the couch watching TV. The wife hears her phone chirp, then realizes she left it in the kitchen. She goes to get the phone and checks to see who texted her. The message is from her husband: “Since you’re in the kitchen, please bring more chips and a beer when you come back.” Has the husband acted ethically? What should the wife do? Meet this week’s panelists: Paul Edwards used to drive large military vehicles through the deserts of the Middle East, armed with an assault rifle. Today, his occupation of ghostwriting requires him to ask questions first, and shoot later.” 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. Frank Zaccari is a Business and Organizational Development Expert, keynote speaker, TV and podcast host, 4X Amazon bestselling author, and Air Force veteran.

White collar vs. blue collar criminals: Who deserves to serve more time? That's the question the ethics panel takes up when JC Glick, 🔆 Anne Nevel, CAE, and Andre van Heerden join me to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our scenario: Last week, Joseph Tyler was sentenced to eight years in state prison and ordered to pay $23,000 in restitution to older Coloradans that he defrauded in a tree-trimming scam after pleading guilty to 51 counts of theft targeting at risk victims, a class three felony, and to theft, a class five felony. In other headlines, cryptocurrency CEO and billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried faces the possibility of 100 years in prison for fraud and embezzlement. According to claims, hundreds of thousands of investors suffered irreparable financial harm, which Bankman-Fried denies and for which he has expressed no remorse. Many compare him to Bernie Madoff, who received an effective life sentence for massive embezzlement and subsequently died in prison. Meanwhile, reports of unenforced shoplifting laws fill the headlines in cities across the U.S. A state prosecutor in Florida reportedly has a history of downgrading or dropping charges in serious criminal cases, resulting in released offenders committing more egregious crimes. (She was recently suspended by Governor Ron DeSantis.) In Chicago, a convicted felon awaiting trial for murder has been released with electronic surveillance, while a businessman with no criminal record has been held in solitary confinement for 18 months over a divorce dispute. On the one hand, we want white collar criminals to be held accountable, not merely get a slap on the wrist. On the other hand, there seems to be a disproportionate response showing more leniency to violent offenders. Inevitably, any perception of inequity undermines respect for the law, sows distrust in our judicial system, and contributes to a less stable society. How do we address the apparent inequities of justice in an effort to preserve or restore confidence in our systems? 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 CEO of the Commit Foundation, an organization that helps high-performance veterans find their next adventure. Anne Nevel is the Vice President of Education for a trade association and enjoys connecting the right people to the right projects to promote successful collaboration and partnership. Andre van Heerden is Director of The Power of Integrity Ltd, drawing on the perspectives of history and philosophy to show how leadership drives performance by determining corporate culture.

Which is worse: suspicion or gullibility? And do we actually have to choose? Those are the questions that drive my conversation with the incomparable Cy Wakeman when she joins me to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: In a recent op ed posted in The Hill, Disaster Avoidance Expert Gleb Tsipursky writes: “In the brave new world of hybrid work, where the lines between office and home are blurred, employers are navigating uncharted waters. Some have resorted to a draconian approach, implementing surveillance measures to monitor their employees’ productivity.” Mr. Tsipursky goes on to describe how corporations such as JP Morgan and Barclays Bank seem to be suffering from “productivity paranoia,” leading them to track employee emails and even keystrokes. Is it working? According to Glassdoor, 41% of employees feel less productive while being closely monitored. And according to HBR, surveillance makes employees “substantially more likely to engage in various rule-breaking behaviors, such as taking unapproved breaks, disregarding instructions, damaging workplace property, and even stealing office equipment.” Apparently, the lack of trust makes people less trustworthy. It seems reasonable that employers want to ensure that employees are actually doing their jobs. So how can bosses and managers implement a trust-but-verify protocol that promotes worker integrity while avoiding the creation of a toxic culture? And what lessons can we take from these observations to help us have healthier relationships both in the office and outside of work as well? *** Cy Wakeman is a drama researcher, international leadership speaker, consultant, and founder of Reality-Based Leadership. She is the author of four books, including the NY Times Bestseller, The Reality-Based Rules of the Workplace: Know What Boosts Your Value, Kills Your Chances, and Will Make You Happier and, most recently, Life’s Messy, Live Happy. Described as “the secret weapon to restoring sanity to the workplace,” Cy was voted in the top 100 leadership professionals to follow on twitter for 7 years in a row. For the last three years, she has ranked #1 among the Global Gurus list of Top 30 Leadership Professionals across the globe.

Passion is a good thing. Except, perhaps, when it's not. How can we tell where to draw the line? That's the question the ethics panel takes up when Toni McLelland MSc FRSA, Cathleen O’Sullivan, and Colin D Smith join me for a special transatlantic episode of Grappling with the Gray. Here is our topic: With Taylor Swift’s current Eras tour the most successful in history, it’s inevitable that many Swifties sometimes end up on the same flights headed for the same concerts. A recent viral TikTok video shows nearly the entire contingent of passengers, together with the flight attendants, joining in a sing-a-long at 40,000 feet. A few passengers, however, appear less than enthusiastic. In the comments, reactions were predictably mixed: One person wrote: “I feel bad for other passengers, especially those with sensory issues, claustrophobia, or anxiety disorders.” Another said, “I would seriously cry if I was on that plane – this is my worst fear.” Some referred to the flight as “torture” or “their personal hell,” joking that they would escape through the emergency exit if the sing-along happened to them. Here’s my personal favorite: “First I thought the plane was going down or something, then I realised they are just singing Taylor Swift and thought.. that's worse.” Clearly, the large majority of passengers were enjoying themselves. Does that give them the right to inflict discomfort on the minority? Or should the few nay-sayers just grin and bear it since so many others are getting so much pleasure from it? What about the flight attendants? Should they participate, try to shut it down, or simply remain neutral? And if it should be stopped, how should that be handled? Meet the panelists: 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. Cathleen O’Sullivan is a leadership coach and host of the Legendary Leaders podcast. She helps female leaders grow their careers, their mindset, their confidence and sense of self-worth while enabling them to live a more balanced life that offers more time, more health and more fun! Colin Smith aka The Listener, works with leaders and professionals to improve the listening, thinking and relationships skills of individuals and teams.

Along with gun rights, border protection, and trans-athletes, one of our most contentious issues is Daylight Savings Time. That's the issue the ethics panel takes up when Jennifer H. Elder, CSP, CPA, Diane Helbig, and 🟦 Mark O'Brien join me to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: It’s almost that time again. Get ready to set your clocks forward an hour. Or is it back an hour? Some people love daylight savings time. Some people hate it. And some people don’t care, don’t see what the point is, or just don’t like the semi-annual ritual of changing the clocks. In March, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Standard Time Act, putting daylight savings time into effect for the first time in the U.S. to save energy costs during WWI. In February 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt did the same thing. When the 1973 oil embargo hit, President Richard Nixon signed year-round DST into law, hoping to ease the national gas crisis. The time change proved unpopular. According to NBC News, Eight Florida children died in traffic accidents that were linked to the time change, which was reversed in October 1974 by President Gerald Ford. Two years ago, Senator Marco Rubio introduced the Sunshine Act in an effort to make DST permanent once again. And once again, there was great debate. What are the ethical questions involved in changing the clocks, especially given that the 24 hour clock seems an arbitrary construct? Arguments that DST saves energy usage and saves lives on the highway are widely contested, and the benefits for agricultural work are similarly unclear, especially in our age of mechanization. Is this all much ado about nothing, or is there really a compelling argument one way or the other? How do we approach the issue in a way that takes all views into account? 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. 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.

If life isn't fair, should we stop trying? That question underlies this episode's topic as Deb Coviello The Drop In CEO™, 🟦 Melissa Hughes, Ph.D., and John E. McGlothlin join the the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our challenge: Since the topic of transgender rights has become widespread, the debate over biological men competing in women’s sports has become heated, to say the least. Lia Thomas, a 6’ 1” biological man who identifies as a woman, won an NCAA Division I national championship, after tying for fifth in a different meet against Riley Gaines, a biological woman who was the 2022 Southeastern Conference Women's Swimming and Diving Scholar-Athlete of the Year. Presumably, the reason for the existence of men’s and women’s sports is because of the recognition that men on average have greater size, strength, and muscle mass that give them an advantage over women. Martina Navratilova and Serena Williams, arguably the two greatest women tennis players in history, have both stated that they would be unable to compete successfully against men. So what is the rationale for continuing the separation of sexes in sports if biological men can choose to compete as women based on self-identification? In a recent article in Forbes, Oregon State University women & gender studies professor Susan M. Shaw proposes that, instead of gender divisions, athletics might be divided according to weight, as boxing and wrestling already are. Is this a practical solution? What about team sports like basketball and football, where different body types are suited to different positions on the same team? And isn’t sports by definition inherently unfair, since stronger, more coordinated players have an automatic advantage over others? What about locker rooms? Many female swimmers have complained that the presence of biological men is deeply offensive and threatening while they change in and out of their sportswear. Do the same arguments that applies on the playing field apply equally in the changing room? Meet this week’s 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. Melissa Hughes is Founder and Principal of the Andrick Group, applying recent brain research to improve employee engagement, company culture, team dynamics, and innovation. 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. #ethics #culture #gender #society #values #grappling

Can ethical standards be too high? That's the question the ethics panel takes up when Marcus Aurelius Anderson, David Marlow, and Jason Todd join me to Grapple with the Gray. Please join us live! Here is our topic: I was getting off a plane after a trip to the east coast, when a neighbor on the same flight offered me a ride home. I heard him call his son-in-law, whom he told to meet us at departures. “Why are you having him come to departures?” I asked. “There’s less traffic there,” he replied. “It’s easier to get in and out quickly.” I immediately felt uncomfortable. Kantian ethics teaches us to project from the individual to the universal. What if everyone used the same trick to avoid traffic? By adding to the congestion at departures, we’d be making it harder for departing passengers to get to their flights. I considered saying something, but he had already hung up the phone, he was doing me a favor, and I questioned whether he would take my objections to heart. However, reflecting that catastrophic ethical blindness often begins with tiny moral compromises, I regretted not speaking up. We should set our ethical standards higher, both for ourselves and because when others see us cutting ethical corners, we give them license to take similar shortcuts, thereby contributing to the erosion of ethical sensitivity in our society. So to what degree should we apply the same standards we set for ourselves to others? Should we speak up in defense of them? And if we do, how do we avoid sounding sanctimonious or, in this case, ungrateful? Meet this week’s panelists: Marcus Aurelius Anderson is a Leadership and Executive Catalyst, TEDx and International Keynote Speaker, Author of "The Gift of Adversity", Host of ACTA NON VERBA Podcast, winner of Arete Syndicate “Create a Positive Impact” award. David Marlow, aka the Ikigai Guy and the Versatile Guru, is a coach, speaker, and author who helps people live into their purpose and helps companies bring their purpose to their products and their people. Jason Todd is a serial entrepreneur who empowers others through insightful books, engaging talks, and over 500 podcast episodes. He partners with founders, guiding them to business growth, personal fulfillment, and a sustainable, successful future. #ethics #values #culture #mindset #accountability #grappling

How far can we ethically stretch the letter of the law in an effort to fulfil the spirit of the law? That's the question the panel takes up on this episode of Grappling with the Gray. Here is our topic: Last week, Jennifer Crumbley was found guilty on four counts of involuntary manslaughter for her role in her 15 year old son Ethan’s murder of four classmates in a November 2021 shooting. Ethan pled guilty in 2022 and received a life sentence with no chance of parole. This was the first time manslaughter charges were ever brought against anyone other than the actual perpetrator. Prosecutor Karen McDonald devised a “novel legal theory,” stretching the conventional application of the law in a way that her own legal team warned her was a “huge risk.” She seems to have been motivated by the belief that if parents know they can be imprisoned for their children’s crimes, they will take more responsibility for their children to prevent horrific mass shootings from happening. In contrast to some other states, like Texas, Michigan law does not distinguish between involuntary manslaughter and criminal negligence – the former being active and the latter being passive. Consequently, the prosecutor had to choose whether to bend the accepted understanding of the law or settle for pursuing a lesser charge carrying a much reduced sentence. Does it set a dangerous precedent for a prosecutor to reinterpret the law to work around lawmakers’ failure to legislate proportionate responses that serves as an effective deterrent? Is it fair to Jennifer Crumbley to be made an example of when parents of worse shooters were given a pass or a slap on the wrist? And isn’t there something incongruous about convicting a parent for a child’s crime while simultaneously trying and convicting the child as an adult? Finally, is it possible to differentiate between one kind of judicial activism that fills necessary holes in the system and another kind that reflects the personal bias of court officials and potentially undermines the integrity of the law? Meet this week’s panelists: Ed Brenegar is Founder and Chief of Circle of Impact, LLC, teaching people to think for themselves, to act on their own initiative and to become people of impact within their organizations, communities, and institutions. Cris Parker once again joins us from Sydney, Australia. She is Head of The Ethics Alliance, a community of organizations across sectors that are connected through The Ethics Centre, providing ethics-based counseling, consulting and education programs. 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. hashtag #ethics hashtag #justice hashtag #culture