All Posts in Leadership

|In: Business Ethics|Last Updated:

Politics and religion are two of the three forbidden topics for polite conversation. Sex is the third, but its most interesting aspects don’t lend themselves to conversation anyway. But since sex is the only forbidden topic missing from this column in recent months, I figured, let’s make it a clean sweep …

Actually, no. Nor am I going to revisit politics. The electoral silly season is over.

Religion, on the other hand, calls for one more column.

Most of the responses I received in response to my recent column on core values were complimentary, compassionate, and favorable. To all who wrote, my thanks.

I also received dozens of letters I can only describe as evangelism. In conjunction with other recent experiences and conversations, I’m concerned.

It isn’t that I think conversations about either religion or politics are bad manners. In a society that depends on an informed electorate to choose its leaders, and also relies on the ability of diverse communities to coexist, one might consider exchanges of views on these subjects to be a worthwhile way for citizens to spend an evening or three.

So I don’t object at all to these messages that, either to criticize or evangelize, asserted the absolute truth of each writer’s brand of Christianity. I’m sincerely delighted for anyone who has found a system of belief that provides comfort and clarity. In churches, homes, and conversations with friends, your religious beliefs are your own business, so long as they don’t lead to actions that cause harm to others.

Bringing your beliefs into the workplace, on the other hand, creates discomfort for co-workers, and a dangerous situation for yourself and your employer. I worry that many Americans seem quite comfortable doing so.

Consider this anecdote, related by an acquaintance not long ago: “I interviewed a job applicant today. When he told me he was a Christian, I knew he’d be a great manager.”

Or this, mentioned to me casually in an open area by a middle-manager friend: “Secular humanism is the single biggest source of evil in the world today.”

Or this, paraphrased from several dozen office conversations I’ve overheard in recent years: “Islam isn’t like Christianity or Judaism. It encourages terrorism!”

(Or, at the risk of re-introducing politics, Joe Lieberman’s offensive comment, early in the presidential campaign, that God is the only source of ethics.)

If you don’t think attitudes like these can create discriminating or harassing work environments that lead to legal liability, you aren’t thinking. In the workplace, your actions and decisions must be pluralistic. You must show respect, not just toleration, regardless of your personal beliefs. It’s required, both by law and common courtesy. My friend who liked the Christian job applicant violated this rule, and to his company’s detriment. He should have disqualified the applicant for lack of professionalism, and is at risk of termination for his own unprofessional conduct.

It might appear that I’m singling out Christians in this column. If so, it’s because in my personal experience in the workplace I’ve only experienced evangelism and religious disrespect from people who describe themselves as such. Being the majority in America puts Christians most at risk. The principle certainly isn’t limited to Christianity, and if you’re Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Islamic (or, for that matter, a practitioner of Wicca or an atheist) … you also need to respect the beliefs of others, at least when you’re “on the clock”.

Values are an important part of leadership. By all means discuss values, but when you do, discuss them behaviorally. You can, and should ask, “What would you do in this situation?” and not only during job interviews. The best leaders both demonstrate personal integrity in their actions and demand it of their employees, and take steps to ensure the core values of the business are well-understood by all employees.

Discussing the source of those values in religious terms, and especially insisting that any one religious perspective is more correct than the rest, puts you in the danger zone. The gulf between, “Here’s what I believe,” and “I’m right so you must be misguided,” is immense. Discussions of religion happen on personal time and can have nothing to do with business.

Besides, if you use religion as a criterion for personnel decisions you won’t learn anything. After all, anyone can tell you they’re a Christian. In the workplace, it’s how they … and you … act that matters.

Comments

|In: Industry Commentary|Last Updated:

Draw your own conclusions.

In my December 18th column I asserted that Bush and Gore should both be embarrassed about their total lack of leadership during the Florida election fiasco. Quite a few angry readers, all politically conservative supporters of our new president, complained. Every one accused me of being partisan on the subject. Most of them were unpleasant. Many repeated almost verbatim the most anti-factual of Republican propaganda. (A distinction: Much of the Republican propaganda was in direct opposition to the facts, and vitriolic besides. The Democratic propaganda was simply preposterous. Chalk it up to a difference in style.)

No Gore supporters griped about my being a Republican partisan. Go figure.

Other correspondents expressed concern that I inappropriately strayed into political commentary in an IT publication. Fear not. Leadership is a frequent topic in this column, and while I’ll continue to draw on current events to illustrate leadership issues, I’ll also continue to be bipartisan when I disparage our political so-called leadership. In other words, I won’t ever mention that more than $40 million worth of investigation successfully proved Bill Clinton cheated on his wife and lied about it in court without also mentioning that his two predecessors — Reagan and Bush Sr. — sanctioned the sale of illicit drugs to American citizens to finance an illegal war against the legitimate government of Nicaragua.

American values being what they are, most appear to consider Clinton’s crime the more deplorable of the two.

Which is relevant to this week’s prediction. But first …

I’d originally planned to make a bunch of New Year’s predictions this week. It’s something of a January tradition after all.

Sadly, I don’t have anything interesting to predict. The trends that will play out this year started awhile ago. 2001 will see the continuing e-enablement of business, not a transformation to something unrecognizable. Radically new business models won’t flourish: ASPs won’t enjoy triple-digit growth; auctions won’t become the dominant means for setting price in either the B2B or B2C world; digital exchanges will mostly find success by scaling back to become transaction clearinghouses.

2001 will be a year of consolidation and incremental improvement. In part, this will be the result of economic jitters. It’s also due to simple fatigue — there’s a limit to the amount of radical change society can eat before it has to stop and do some digesting.

My one new prediction is social, although it will affect the world of business: The Bobby Knight syndrome will start to recede.

You recall Bobby Knight, Indiana’s dear departed basketball coach. Knight behaved as if winning absolved all sins. He threw chairs, abused office staff, and assaulted those who made him angry (not a difficult task), attributing all criticism to jealousy. If it were just Knight we could chalk this up to a psychological case study. Sadly, Knight enjoys a huge coterie of supporters who agree with his philosophy that results are all that matter.

Every time you hear someone say, “We do whatever it takes,” you’re hearing an echo of Bobby Knight, because sometimes, “whatever it takes” is (or should be) completely unacceptable. I’m guessing Americans have reached their limit and are ready to say, “We don’t want you do to whatever it takes. We insist that you respect some boundaries, and only win if you can stay inside them.”

Or maybe it’s just a hope.

Comments