When CEOs Misbehave

I recently read the transcript of an interesting interview with Jeffrey Pfeffer, the Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, published on Guy Kawasaki's blog. Pfeffer was asked, "How do you stop the misdeeds (for example, Enron) in organizations?" Here's his answer.

"What is interesting is that there are few social sanctions—as contrasted with legal or financial ones—for bad behavior. Executives who have served jail time are back on TV and are still celebreties. More to the point, they aren’t shunned by their colleagues. The prevailing mood seems to be, as long as people retain enough wealth, they can buy their way back by donating time and money. If we are serious about enforcing norms, then there have to be real sanctions. In the military academies, violations of important norms are met with expulsion or social ostracism—eating alone, for instance. Not so, not yet, for the most part in the corporate world."

Makes sense, doesn't it? When we learn of a corporation's misdeeds, we need to find out who led that organization at the time and make sure they hear what we think of them. If we buy their products, we need to stop buying their products. If we bank/invest with their company, we need to stop banking/investing with their company. If we blog, we need to say what we think about their behavior on our blogs. People who misbehave, whether they be congressional representatives or CEOs, must be held accountable.

Letter to President Obama -- Subject: Torture

MSU College of Law: Catherine M. Grosso and Sister Dianna Ortiz,a torture survivor, Issue Letter to President Obama Regarding Torture, LANSING, Mich.

To President Obama regarding torture, from MSU College of Law Professor Catherine M. Grosso and Sister Dianna Ortiz,

The Obama administration has declared that the Geneva conventions apply to the war on terror, that torture is illegal, and that the military commissions violate our basic tenants of fair process. In the euphoria over succeeding in these areas that recently required such vigilance, we must not lose track of the scope and depth of the damage caused by the violations.

When it comes to torture, the greatest risk alights on ordinary people all over the world who come face to face with an interrogator. U.S. policy chipped away at the very notion of an international ban on torture. U.S. rhetoric eroded the belief that civilized nations do not torture. U.S. practice undermined the nascent restraint that might have existed in some interrogation cells in some corners of the world.

We must focus today on how to restore the global understanding that only outlaws, thugs, and renegades torture. The immediate risk is that a "forward looking" administration will shy from the task at hand. It is important to fix the offensive laws. Likewise, an investigation is important. The truth is powerful and we must be ready to hear, to own, and to document the grave breaches of human dignity that have been perpetrated in the name of the war on terror. But repaired laws and an investigation cannot remedy the harm that has been done to customary international law and, more importantly, to the safety of detainees all over the world.

The United States, as a member of the world community, must say loudly and clearly that this discourse was wrong and that those who advanced it stood outside of our laws and our values. We must work to ensure certain prosecutions are squarely on the table as a possible response to the findings of any investigation.

Enough is known by now to suggest that senior officials violated U.S. law. The only question now is whether the president will do what under law, he is required to do. We, as a modern democracy, show that people have transgressed our laws by prosecuting them in court. Our Constitution and our criminal laws require that we do nothing less. Our history holds the stories of similar violations by senior administrators and the ensuing prosecutions.

An independent criminal investigation is how we get from accusations to evidence. It is time to start this investigation, and to follow the evidence honestly and in good faith. Does the Obama administration believe in one law for all citizens or are the powerful exempt from that principle?

Bush Leaves Office

Americans are prone to be generous and forgiving -- inclined to pull for the underdog. We see this now as George W. Bush leaves office. There are those who object to the criticisms leveled at the former president, and defend his record despite clear evidence of malfeasance and his historically low public approval ratings. Others contend that we should cease rehashing the past and move on to confront the daunting challenges that lay before us.

The Tri-City Herald (McClatchy), allowing the former president to speak for himself, published the full text of his farewell address to the nation without editorial comment (Sunday, January 18, 2009). The former president in outlining what he sees as his accomplishments and in defending his record told us, “I’ve always acted with the best interests of our country in mind… and followed my conscious.” Perhaps we can take him at his word, but it would be an egregious mistake to sugar coat, excuse, or pass over his record in office over the last eight years, whatever his motivation.

One of our nation’s great historians, Pulitzer Prize winning author, David C. McCullough, tells us that, “History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the way we are.”

Whether or not we, as a nation, hold Bush and others in his administration legally accountable for abuses, misconduct, and criminality as some demand, surely we must as a people ensure that history hold him morally accountable. We must learn from our mistakes, for without doubt these are perilous times, and we must reaffirm who we are to ourselves and to the world.