Leadership and Most Favored Status

You're familiar with the Most Favored Nation status that countries use to give import tariff breaks to those countries that they want to support for some reason. I believe the US granted China MFN status, which is a good thing since everything we purchase seems to come from China these days. Even if you aren't a tariff genius (and I know nothing about tariffs) you can understand that a country that has Most Favored Nation status must be, well, more favored than a country that has, say, Not So Favored Nation status. Or "We Don't Like You" status. Someone is getting a better deal than someone else.

Special status sometimes applies in a corporate setting too. It's not supposed to, but we're all adults here so let's admit that it does. Some companies might grant unofficial status to, oh let's say the Pretty and Studly group. The photogenic get special consideration in some way. Perhaps they get to work from home while others must adhere to policy and schlep in to their dismal little cube day after day. Perhaps the "I Used to Work For The Boss" group gets special consideration - a nicer office and invitations to corporate events. You know what I mean.

Let's say, in an entirely hypothetical situation, that someone has special status. I'm just making this up to make a point about leadership under duress. It's entirely hypothetical. Perhaps this person belongs to that most revolting of Most Favored Groups, the Brownnosers. They have no special skill, but through diligent application of sucking up to the right people at the right time, they have advanced their career far beyond where it should be.

Perhaps our entirely hypothetical person has even pulled the old "If you don't promote me I'll quit" stunt, and succeeded. Shame, in a not hypothetical way, on the HR Department for falling for such an act of corporate terrorism. But our Brownnoser has managed to move himself or herself into a position of responsibility. Much is expected of them. They are going to be expected to lead the organization through some difficult changes. They must be able to communicate effectively with hundreds of other staff members, and must be able to sell the changes. They must build trust within different departments.

What happens when our entirely hypothetical person screws up? I'm not talking about putting a dinner on an expense account that wasn't business related. That's stupid, but that can be handled with a stern warning and restitution. No, I'm talking about some screwup that goes out to the entire organization, that makes it nearly impossible for the rest of the company to have any respect for this person. Let me try to think of an example.

Suppose an email goes out to all hands explaining a process. Further suppose that our MFB (Most Favored Brownnoser) sends a reply to his mentor that people in the company are too stupid to understand the memo. And in a way that only the gods understand, our MFB hits the "Reply To All" button, sending that email to every, and I mean every person in the company.

Yeah, you know what would happen if you sent the email. You aren't in a Most Favored Group, so you would be packing your bags and out the door. HR would be wearing their most serious frown, perhaps even a scowl as they goosestep you out the door. But what about the MFB? How will senior management (leadership) handle the situation? What is proper and effective damage control when someone who allegedly represents senior management tells 90% of the employees that they are stupid? I mean, didn't your mom ever tell you not to call someone stupid? Isn't the "No Asshole" Rule built for situations like this?

We've had this hypothetical discussion lately. Some think an apology is sufficient. Some think it will blow over if it is forgotten. Me, I think something like this will never be forgotten by the ones that were the recipients of the email. To me, management must be decisive. They must make a clear and public statement that such attitudes will not be tolerated, and the MFB needs to find work somewhere else. To me, that's a firing offense.

Consider the plight to the late Gov. Elliott Spitzer, formerly of New York. Gov. Spitzer was found to have spent large sums of money on ladies of the evening. Not very attractive ladies of the evening either, if you ask me, but perhaps I don't understand the market. And because Gov. Spitzer was caught canoodling with a woman other than Mrs. Spitzer, he was forced by public opinion to resign.

There are some who ask why he had to resign for this. He didn't use government funds. He didn't use government resources, like the limo or the mansion for his affairs. It was his cash and his time. Why should what he does in his free time reflect on his ability to govern?

Such talk is very naive. In public life, everything you do reflects on your ability to govern. And when you climb the corporate ladder, the same rules come into play. You have what lawyers call a "higher duty of care" to the company. And part of that duty of care is to always present a positive and professional image externally and internally. And if you screw up big time, the price you pay is your job.

But our hypothetical case is a Special Person. Should management sweep it under the rug? Should they punish with a slap on the wrist? I say that if they do, they have abdicated their responsibilities as leaders. A case like this needs to leave no doubt in the mind of others what the attitude of the corporate leadership is. They need to say "We will not tolerate this from anyone" and dismiss the individual. Failure to act would send a message that leadership agrees with the concept that most of the staff are stupid. They therefore have no right to expect any reasonable level of performance from that staff. After all, they are "stupid".

Sometimes, even the littlest of errors can entrap us. But that's life. The senior management of an organization has a responsibility to many stakeholders - shareholders, banks, customers, suppliers, and even employees. Tom Peters, writing about the perception customers have of certain products, said "Perception is all there is." And that applies to everything. If employees perceive their work isn't valued, they will turn in work that is worthless. Much of leadership deals with the management of perceptions. If an incorrect perception isn't corrected, it will fester and grow like a cancer, and can even consume the organization.

Spitzer didn't wait for the next election to step down. In our example of Bill Marsh's leadership on the Canadian Everest Team, he didn't wait for team members to make up their minds, then let them hang around to poison the group with negativity. It was make a decision now, then act on it. I may have an entirely hypothetical post on what action our entirely hypothetical company leadership might take in a few days.

What do you think?