Mark Hurd, until recently was one of the best CEOs in corporate America. During his tenure at Hewlet Packard, from 2005 to 2010 the stock more than doubled and shareholder value increased by more than 40 % percent to $108.1 billion. He was highly respected in the industry and by his colleagues and employees.

What happened?

Not much, yet enough for him to offer his resignation.

Jodie Fisher, a marketing consultant, a former e-list actress was hired by Mr. Hurd in the fall of 2007. Her role was to introduce him to HP’s major clients at forums and business meetings.

After she left the company, in 2009, she accused him of sexual harassment and filed a lawsuit. The Board launched an investigation, as they should have. The conclusion of the investigation cleared Mark Hurd of the accusation. Furthermore both  Jodie Fisher’s attorney and Mr. Hurd declared that there had not been any sexual intimacy between them.

However, in the process of the investigation it was discovered that there were discrepancies in Mark Hurd’s expense reports ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 in relations to trips and meals he took accompanied by Ms. Fisher. According to the conclusion of the report, these expenses should have been labeled “personal” and not related to business. It is interesting to note that Mr. Hurd’s compensation last year was $ 24 million!

It seems to me that Mr. Hurd lacked good judgment in hiring Ms. Fisher because of her total absence of corporate background.

What lessons can we learn from this story?

As usual, let me list a few:

1.     It is not the amount that counts but the principle. Principles and ethics should be our guidelines in submitting expense reports (or anything else we do). We should be able to justify every action we take including entries on our expense reports, however small or large

2.     We should take ethics and codes of conduct very seriously. They are becoming increasingly important in the conduct of business today. I wonder how many of us have read and really understood our own company’s code of conduct?

3.     We should avoid errors in judgment. We are all prone to make them. Ethics and values can be helpful in preventing them. In this case, some will argue that if Mr. Hurd had been honest with himself, he most likely would have never hired Ms. Foster in the first place.

The word Peccadillo is a diminutive of the Spanish word Peccado which means sin. Can there ever be such a thing as a small offence in matter of ethics or morality?

As Robert Brault the freelance columnist once said:

“You do not wake up one morning a bad person.  It happens by a thousand tiny surrenders of self-respect to self-interest. ”

Jeffrey Seglin, the author of “The Right Thing” weekly ethics column that is distributed by the New York Times Syndicate chose my entry on Piers Morgan to ask in his “sound off” question “Does Our Baggage Weigh US Down?” He asked his audience: “Assuming that Morgan has owned up to his errors, showed his remorse and offered a sincere apology, should he be forgiven for the baggage he carries? Or is a wrong a wrong, regardless of how the wrongdoer subsequently feels about it?” The last count indicated a 60 % in favor of forgiveness and 40 % opposed it. These numbers are reassuring because I believe forgiveness is a good indication of generosity. Generosity is a positive trait in society.

Your opinion matters. Politicians, marketers are fully aware that fact. In public relations we often try to change people’s opinion in favor of one of our clients.

But are we always entitled to our opinion? Sometimes I think we are not. It all depends on how informed, open-minded and unbiased we are.

People will value and respect our opinion only if they believe we are both credible and trustworthy.

We all want to earn the respect of others. We want to have the ability to give good advice and to persuade. What are the qualities or values that can earn that respect?

Let me list a few:

1.      Reputation

The word respect comes from the Latin respicere which means look behind. It means that before we can respect someone we need to know how that person has behaved in the past, what is his or her reputation.

2.      Truthfulness:

Being as truthful as we can and avoiding deception are key to building trust.

People need to know that what we say is true, or at the very least that we believe it is true.

3.      Humility or Modesty:

We should be humble in our attitude and not think too highly of ourselves. We usually do not like people that “have all the answers” and are arrogant. Arrogance can be seductive for a short time but it soon loses its attraction and is discredited. We find it reassuring when someone of vast knowledge and experience admits that he or she does not have the answer to our questions. It is sometimes refreshing to hear “I do not know.” It augments our trust in that person because of his or her honesty and humility.

In today’s New York Times David Brooks in his Op-Ed called “A Case of Mental Courage” laments that “we are all less conscious of our severe mental shortcomings and less inclined to be skeptical of our own opinions.” He adds that “few in public life habitually step back and think about the weakness in their own thinking.”

The 19^th Century America clergyman, Philip Brooks once said:

“The best advisors … give us, out of themselves, the ardent spirit and desire to act right, and leave us then, even through many blunders, to find out what our own form of right action is.”

P.S. You have three more days to respond to Jeffrey Seglin’s question. http://jeffreyseglin.blogspot.com/

Your opinion does matter!

The issue of the proposed Moslem Mosque and Cultural Center, so called the Cordoba Initiative at Ground Zero is very controversial and a difficult one because it is generated from at least three different origins: Religious, Political-Diplomatic and emotional.

According to a CNN poll conducted on August 6^th , 68 percent of Americans said they opposed building the mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.

It is also particularly a sensitive issue because of its symbolic nature. A symbol, according to Webster is: something such as an object, picture, written word, spoken word, sound or particular mark that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention. Symbols play a very important role in our lives. There are national symbols such as the flag, religious symbols such as the Star of David, the Cross and the Crescent. There are symbols that represent history, such as the phrase “never again” for the Holocaust, “we shall overcome” for the fight against discrimination. 9/11 has become the symbol of what happened on that day, in 2001.  A cemetery can also be considered to be a symbol. Ground Zero in many ways is a “hallowed ground.”

Both proponents and opponents of the project make valid points.

The proponents argue that the Center has a legal, constitutional right to be there. Freedom of religion is at the corner stone of our Society.

President Obama, said at the White House on Friday, marking the beginning of Ramadan that Moslems:

“Have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.” He also made the point in a CNN interview that he was not discussing the wisdom of having the Mosque at Ground Zero.

Mayor Bloomberg very eloquently said in speaking of the victims of 9/11:

“We do not honor their lives by denying the very Constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights - and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.”

Opponents, such as Christopher Hitchens argue that the Center’s claim to become a hub of moderation and bridge-making is questionable because of what its founder, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf said on 60 Minutes, right after the attack on the World Trade Towers:

“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” He added, “In the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A.”

Furthermore, the fact that he refuses to condemn Hamas and Hezbholla as terrorist organizations is most troubling for a man who claims to be devoted to peace. The lack of transparency both on the funding ($100M) and on the content of its educational program makes it even more suspicious.

This issue, from an ethical point of view seems to me to be one of a conflict of two fundamental values, which are tolerance and respect. Tolerance for the religion of others and respect for the pain and suffering of those that lost loved one in the hands of radical Islam and that oppose the Center. Tolerance should be rewarded by reciprocity.

Adin Steinsalz, the Jerusalem Talmudic scholar wrote in a Washington Post online forum:

“From the outside, one can see it as a question of sense and sensibility. In the context of the recent past, building a mosque in this place is just a lack of tact.”

My recommendations to Imam Rauf would be that now that he has established his legal and constitutional right to develop the center at Ground Zero, he should, on his own initiative, move it elsewhere. New York’s Governor Paterson says that he would be happy to help find a more suitable place.

As John D. Rockefeller once said:

I believe that every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty.

The Governments of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have decided to ban BlackBerry usage in the region for “security concerns.” The Encrypton technology used by Research in Motion, the Canadian manufacturer of BlackBerrys, makes it difficult for governments to monitor the content of instant messages and web searches. The UAE and Saudi Arabia claim to be concerned by a possible use of encrypted e-mail messages by terrorists. Mustafa Alani of Gulf Research Center in Dubai says: “It is not just politics and terrorism - it is organized crime, drug-smuggling and human-trafficking.” The reason given for such a ban according government officials is that BlackBerry has been operated outside its legal framework.

The State Department spokesman said that the Obama administration was disappointed at the UAE decision. He said: “It’s about what we think is an important element of democracy, human rights, freedom of information and the flow of information in the 21^st. century.”

This issue seems to me to be one of security versus freedom.

We know that it is in the very nature of governments to continually try to increase influence and power over the people they govern. The Founding Fathers, as well as the democratic movements in 18^th. Century Europe, were fully aware of that fact and hence imposed limits on the power of governments. Government access to emails from visitors and citizens certainly increases the government’s power.

It is also true that today our security or safety is more threatened than ever by terrorism and other criminal entities.

According to numerous surveys, when people are given a choice between security and freedom, they will opt for security.

How much of our liberty are we ready to give up in exchange for our safety or rather what is the correct balance between these two important values in the society we want to live in, assuming that we are living in a democratic country?

This question should be addressed both from the personal or individual level as well as from the community or national level.

On the personal level we should determine the line we will not allow the government to cross in regards to our liberty. In a democratic society we have means to defend ourselves from laws or other government decisions that infringe on our basic liberty. When these decisions are intolerable to us we have the option to protest publicly and to use our power at the voting booth and in some cases consider civil disobedience.

On the National level we have to make sure that the people we elect to govern share our basic beliefs in regards to freedom and hold them accountable once elected or in power.

We should remember Benjamin Franklin’s warning when he said:

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.“

Wikileaks, an organization created in 2007, released more than 10,000 classified Army documents on the war in Afghanistan.

Wikileaks’ purpose, according to its website, is to: “protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public.

They believe that “transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people.”

There is a paradox in the way Wikileaks operates. Wikileaks claims transparency but will not reveal the source of the information they diffuse. How can one ascertain that the information is correct if the source is anonymous? This was pointed out by Farhad Manjoo, a blogger on Slate.com who asks: “Is radical transparency compatible with total anonymity?”

Was there a moral justification or even a moral imperative to release these documents?  Apparently Julian Assange, the spokesperson for Wikileaks, believes so. He said that the documents content might show evidence of war crimes.

Robert Gates, the U.S. Secretary of Defense thinks otherwise. He said: “There’s also a moral culpability they have put this out without any regard whatsoever for the consequences.” He believes that the publication of those documents will threaten the lives of individual Afghanis named in the documents that have given assistance to the U.S. Army

We know that in the past the Government and the Army have used national security argument as an excuse to prevent the American public from finding out information that was detrimental to Government’s reputation and that had nothing to do with security.

The U.S. Supreme Court rules in the case of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers that “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.”

However, in this case, it is most probably true that the Taliban will target the Afghanis that were named in the documents.

How should we deal with confidential information that we might come across that we believe could be harmful to individuals, our corporations? When should we become whistleblowers?

Let me list a few thoughts.

We should:

1. Make sure that the information we have is accurate and factual.

2. Check our motives and make sure that they are purely disinterested.

3. Think about the consequences both for ourselves and for others.

4. Be willing to pay the consequences of our whistle blowing even if it means having to go to jail.

As Edmund Burke once said:

“It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.”

The verbal abuse and outburst of Mel Gibson last week was made public on the Net and in the printed press all over the country. One could argue that the fact that Grigorieva (Mel’s ex-girl friend) taped the “conversation” is objectionable, particularly if the intent was not only to expose him but also to make a profit by selling the tape to the media.

One could also object (and I do) to the publication of both the audio and printed version of his deplorable comments. The media need not to convey such garbage.

Nevertheless Mr. Gibson said what he said and there are no excuses, ever for being racist and abusive.

How do we deal or should deal with anger? We have all encountered it either as the perpetrator or as the victim in both our private and professional life.

Below are some thoughts that might be helpful.

Anger is sometimes a legitimate emotion. Once we recognize that fact, we may be more serene in our reaction to it. We get angry when we feel betrayed or when we think someone has broken a promise, whether explicitly or implicitly. Anger is justified whether we or others are victim of the injustice.

Anger is a very debilitating emotion that often suspends reason. Once reason is suspended, we are at the mercy of committing irresponsible actions.

We should remember that anger like most emotions does not last. Aaron Ben-Ze’ev in his book The Subtlety of Emotions says that anger usually lasts a few minutes and rarely for a few hours. That must be the reason why the law requires a 48-hours “cooling time” before someone can purchase a handgun. When you feel anger rising, why don’t you take a breather, walk around the block or listen to music. Distraction, in this case, is highly recommended!

We can control anger. Anger is the cause of the first recorded murder in History. Cain killed Abel, his brother, because he was angry. God warned him when he said:

“Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you but you must master it.”

Our anger can also be misguided. More often than not, our anger is based on assumptions, rumors and hearsay, not on facts. We should make sure, before we get angry, that our information is factual.

We should also consider that our anger may have its origin in our own past or trauma and may not be directly related to the actual incident that provokes our anger. That possibility was explored in the magnificent 1957 Sidney Lumet movie Twelve Angry Men.

Abraham Joshua Heschel once wrote:

“In a controversy, the instant we feel anger, we have already ceased striving for truth and have begun striving for ourselves.”

P.S. I hope that reading this blog entry did not make you……really angry!

It was announced last week that Piers Morgan might replace Larry King on CNN. Piers, according to press reports: “comes with baggage.” He was fired from the position of Newspaper Editor of the Daily Mirror for allowing the publication of hoaxed images of troops abusing prisoners in Iraq. The reports also mentioned that he had been at the center of a share-dealing “scandal.”

Don’t we all carry some baggage? Have we not all at one point done something in the past, both in our work life and in our private life, that we would not do again, or that we are ashamed of and hope others will not find out?

The question is should Piers (and we) be forgiven?

We should first remember that forgiveness is never an entitlement but a gift. The etymology of the word “forgive” comes from the Old English word of “forgiefan” which means to give completely. Hence the expression: “begging” for forgiveness. You can beg for forgiveness but you cannot demand it.

Secondly forgiveness does not always exclude retribution. We sometimes have to live with the consequences of our action and misconduct.

Although forgiveness is not an entitlement, there may be some factors that could determine whether we have reasons to hope for forgiveness.

Let me list three:

• Honesty: We should take full responsibility for the wrong we have done and not blame others or give excuses.
• Remorse: We should show true remorse both in words and attitude.
• Apology: The apology must be sincere, well- communicated and accompanied by a willingness to compensate those that have been wronged.

The American public is generous and often ready to forgive if the conditions mentioned above are met.   The public at large forgave John Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs fiasco but did not forgive Nixon for the Watergate scandal. President Kennedy took full responsibility for what happened but President Nixon did not. Nixon was defensive, secretive and deceptive.

John Kador, in an article published by Chief Executive Magazine, points out that according to a 2004 study of annual reports, stock prices of companies whose CEOs blamed poor performance on controllable internal factors were higher that companies whose CEOs put the blame on external factors.

As author Martha Kilpatrick once said:

“We are all on a life long journey and the core of its meaning, the terrible demand of its centrality is forgiving and being forgiven.”

Kerry Sulkowicz a friend (and a blogger for Business Week) mentioned the other day the June 24th business and management column of the Economist, (called Schumpeter) entitled “Too many chiefs: Inflation in job titles is approaching Weimar levels.”

The article laments the fact that we are witnessing a tidal-wave of job-title inflation in the corporate world. The article gives some amusing examples such as paper boys being called “media distribution officers” lavatory cleaners called “sanitation consultants” and “managers” who no longer have anyone to manage. At the conclusion of the column, the author(s) writes: “The essence of inflation, after all, is that it devalues everything that it touches.”

I found the article very interesting and thought I would look at the ethical aspect of how we represent ourselves or would like other to see us in the workplace.

What values come into play?

I can think of three:

• Honesty:

We should avoid being deceptive in the titles we choose or ask our employer to give us. We should try to be a truthful as we can when using titles. Titles should communicate the essence of what we actually do at work.

• Humility:

Pride or should we say a lack of humility seems to me to be the main motivator when we promote our self-importance. Someone said that the definition of a “big shot” is a small shot a long way from home!

• Reputation

We should worry more about our name (our reputation) rather than the title that accompanies it. Many years ago, in Europe it was considered of high class to have just your name on your business card and no title. Your name said everything.

Someone in a posted comment on the Economist article wrote: “This is a true reflection of how phony, egotistical and narcissistic we as a society have pathetically morphed into. We have embraced and unashamedly glorified a culture of brazen deceit and superficiality, sacrificing honesty and openness at the altar of self-aggrandizement and greed.”

I think he is right.

Emmanuel Tchividjian

CEO!

(Chief Ethics Officer)

Helen Thomas retired last week, effective immediately, from the Hearts News Service after the uproar provoked by her shocking and totally unacceptable comments on Israel that I will not repeat.

A colleague at Ruder Finn said to me, “She should have known that in the present context, her statement would have serious consequences.” What present context? Did he mean that her comments were just politically incorrect?

Her comments were outrageous in any context and offensive to all.

The problem with political correctness is that it only addresses what we say (or write) not what we really think or believe. What we think and believe is what really matters. Her apology/excuse is revealing. She said:

“I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.”

She did not elaborate why she regretted her comments nor what was wrong with what she said.

Jack Marshall, an ethicist and lawyer and president of ProEthics LLC (ethicsalarms.com) thinks that Helen Thomas “does think the Jews should get the hell out of Palestine, and in an unguarded moment, admitted it.”

Stewart Ain of The Jewish Week confirmed this when he wrote that Ms. Thomas’ “anti-Israel views were well known among friends and colleagues and have occasionally been on public display.”

It is true that we sometimes say things that we do not mean. But we should ask ourselves whether we are sure that we did not mean it. Maybe, somehow we actually believed what we said.

The most important question of course is what if what we believe is wrong? What if we are prejudiced? What if we do have feelings of hate for an individual or a group?

Billy Graham, the American evangelist and friend and pastor of Presidents from Hoover to Clinton was more honest in his apology about some anti-Semitic comments he had made to President Nixon that was revealed when the White House tapes became public. He said:

I deeply regret comments I apparently made… They do not reflect my views, and I sincerely apologize for any offense caused by the remarks,” and “If it wasn’t on tape, I would not have believed it. I guess I was trying to please… I went to a meeting with Jewish leaders and I told them I would crawl to them to ask their forgiveness.

Abe Foxman of the ADL accepted his apology that he felt was sincere.

We should first be as honest as we can with ourselves.

The Psalmist David exemplified such honesty when he wrote:

Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts.

See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

Different versions of the “obituary” below have been circulating on the Internet for a number of years. It is actually, according to SNOPES.com, the work of Lori Borgman and was first published in the Indianapolis Star on March 15, 1998. Since Truth, Trust, Discretion, Responsibility and Reason are solid values, I thought it appropriate to post this essay on the Ruder Finn Ethics blog. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did.

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

- Knowing when to come in out of the rain;

- Why the early bird gets the worm;

- Life isn’t always fair;

- and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn’t defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers:
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I’m A Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.