11 ms·

Tonedeaf at the Top

82 points by whack 7y ago

ve55 7y ago
>Today, thanks to the #MeToo movement, that is not a viable strategy for corporate boards This is a strong assertion to make when no causal evidence has been put fourth; it's trivial to think of a significant amount of alternative explanations.
privong 7y ago
Title is missing the trailing digit, should be "in 2018".
- labster 7y ago
  Either that or Imperial Rome was even less virtuous than I thought.
  - jdoliner 7y ago
    This is the correct answer right here.
- dang 7y ago
  We've restored the original title, in keeping with the site guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." Submitted title was "More CEOs were let go for ethical violations than for any other reason in 201".
hermitdev 7y ago
While I like that the article points out that the likely reason for the increase in the percentage CEOs gone is likely due to tightening of standards, I disagree with their assessment that its due to the rise of the MeToo movement. Not downplaying MeToo, but the last several years have seen the likes of several auto companies faking emissions test results, for example. Then, you've also some major data breaches at big companies that have seen C level execs shown the door (e.g. Equifax), which personally I'd label both of these ethical violations and amoral, but for different reasons. Faking test results to beat a teat you can't otherwise pass is, for what I hope, obvious reasons. Failling to protect critical personally identifying information (PII) is a dereliction of duty and has exposed over a hundred million US residents to potential identity theft issues, in the case of Equifax. From my observations, I think CEOs (outside of Entertainment industry) rarely get taken down by harassment allegations, but usually for underperforming or alleged fraud or other malfeasance. I'm also not saying that it doesn't happen, but they usually have enough money to "make it go away".
- rbavocadotree 7y ago
  The resignations and firings from the Equifax and Volkswagen scandals were not in 2018. Meanwhile, Demos Parneros, Paul Marciano, Steve Wynn and many others were directly taken down by #MeToo in 2018.
  - hermitdev 7y ago
    I never once mentioned explicitly 2018, and specifically said over recent years. Yes, some execs have been taken down by #MeToo, but I'd hazard a guess that those that have are in the minority of ousted execs.
Noumenon72 7y ago
Is this cyclic? When the economy is poor, most CEOs leave because the company's doing poorly, when the economy is good, most CEOs leave for other reasons.
- _pmf_ 7y ago
  It's also cyclic because fewer women that the CEO has to interact with will be hired.
austincheney 7y ago
I really wish they would not intermingle ethics and morals as those terms are not the same and are frequently contradictory.
- rudolfwinestock 7y ago
  The difference is only etymological. Both words mean "right conduct." The word "morals" comes from Latin (mos, moris). The word "ethics" comes from Greek. Since, for a long time, the liturgical language of the West was Latin, we associate the word "morals" with religion, while we associate the word "ethics" with secular philosophy. Manuals on moral theology in the Greek Orthodox Church use the word "ethics" because that is their language. In short, their connotations may be different, but their definitions are the same.
  - austincheney 7y ago
    Not completely. Ancient Greece had ethos and logos. The etymology of the English ethics derived from ethos but the definition is different. * ethos describes character and conduct * logos describes pleas and persuasive speech. This is the etymological root of the English legal. Ethics does deal with moral character and is a branch of moral philosophy but is more specific than mere right vs wrong as the word itself is more concerned with practical application. Ethics is typically concerned with decisions and alignment to rules or codes of conduct. In this way ethics has the most value in a legal and reputational contexts. It is safe to think of ethics as an alignment to rules that may be explicitly stated or commonly accepted. Morals on the other hand are a broad term concerning right and wrong in accordance with societal norms and a personal value system. These terms can be at odds when a person is asked to follow rules whose violation bears legal consequence but such conduct defies their personal values, such as: loyalty, confidentiality, or religious canons. Sources * ethos - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos * logos - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos * ethics - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
    - rootw0rm 7y ago
temp99990 7y ago
Hard to be surprised. I am nowhere near the top of any corporate ladder, but having worked in several large well-known unicorns in SF I am more confident than ever that it takes a certain person capable of playing political games, pushing others down, taking credit for others work, etc. in order to climb the ladder.
- najarvg 7y ago
  Higher up the ladder you go in any organization, the more likely you are, to find the dark triad of personality - narcissism, psychopathy and machiavellianism [1] There has also been academic interest in exploring with narcissistic leadership types and their impacts. Here is a review of other studies examining these and impacts, frameworks for future studies etc. [2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace [2] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437163/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437163/
  - noahth 7y ago
    almost makes you wonder why we build ladders that tall in the first place, doesn't it?
    - whenchamenia 7y ago
      Because they often reach value. Shareholders seldom quibble over anything but front page news ethics issues.
- greenpresident 7y ago
  Celia Moore[0] has the same opinion: Being able to effortlessly act immorally makes you more likely to rise to the top for the reasons you name. Afterwards, people will imitate that behaviour, giving rise to a corrupt corporate culture. [0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-007-9447-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-007-9447-8
- skrebbel 7y ago
cbsmith 7y ago
Interesting... I thought this was about the isolation of the folks at the top from the rest of the organization. Instead it was just about morals, which, yeah... You can have great morals and yet still be tone deaf.
iconjack 7y ago
Red McCombs is turning in his grave.
netcan 7y ago
in 2018, 39% left due to ethical violations This seems like an incredible number. If the number one reason for bus drivers or real estate agents leaving the job was "ethical violations," it'd be some sort of moral crisis.

82 points by whack 7y ago

ve55 7y ago

>Today, thanks to the #MeToo movement, that is not a viable strategy for corporate boards This is a strong assertion to make when no causal evidence has been put fourth; it's trivial to think of a significant amount of alternative explanations.

privong 7y ago

Title is missing the trailing digit, should be "in 2018".

labster 7y ago
Either that or Imperial Rome was even less virtuous than I thought.
- jdoliner 7y ago
  This is the correct answer right here.
dang 7y ago
We've restored the original title, in keeping with the site guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." Submitted title was "More CEOs were let go for ethical violations than for any other reason in 201".

hermitdev 7y ago

While I like that the article points out that the likely reason for the increase in the percentage CEOs gone is likely due to tightening of standards, I disagree with their assessment that its due to the rise of the MeToo movement. Not downplaying MeToo, but the last several years have seen the likes of several auto companies faking emissions test results, for example. Then, you've also some major data breaches at big companies that have seen C level execs shown the door (e.g. Equifax), which personally I'd label both of these ethical violations and amoral, but for different reasons. Faking test results to beat a teat you can't otherwise pass is, for what I hope, obvious reasons. Failling to protect critical personally identifying information (PII) is a dereliction of duty and has exposed over a hundred million US residents to potential identity theft issues, in the case of Equifax. From my observations, I think CEOs (outside of Entertainment industry) rarely get taken down by harassment allegations, but usually for underperforming or alleged fraud or other malfeasance. I'm also not saying that it doesn't happen, but they usually have enough money to "make it go away".

rbavocadotree 7y ago
The resignations and firings from the Equifax and Volkswagen scandals were not in 2018. Meanwhile, Demos Parneros, Paul Marciano, Steve Wynn and many others were directly taken down by #MeToo in 2018.
- hermitdev 7y ago
  I never once mentioned explicitly 2018, and specifically said over recent years. Yes, some execs have been taken down by #MeToo, but I'd hazard a guess that those that have are in the minority of ousted execs.

Noumenon72 7y ago

Is this cyclic? When the economy is poor, most CEOs leave because the company's doing poorly, when the economy is good, most CEOs leave for other reasons.

_pmf_ 7y ago
It's also cyclic because fewer women that the CEO has to interact with will be hired.

austincheney 7y ago

I really wish they would not intermingle ethics and morals as those terms are not the same and are frequently contradictory.

rudolfwinestock 7y ago
The difference is only etymological. Both words mean "right conduct." The word "morals" comes from Latin (mos, moris). The word "ethics" comes from Greek. Since, for a long time, the liturgical language of the West was Latin, we associate the word "morals" with religion, while we associate the word "ethics" with secular philosophy. Manuals on moral theology in the Greek Orthodox Church use the word "ethics" because that is their language. In short, their connotations may be different, but their definitions are the same.
- austincheney 7y ago
  Not completely. Ancient Greece had ethos and logos. The etymology of the English ethics derived from ethos but the definition is different. * ethos describes character and conduct * logos describes pleas and persuasive speech. This is the etymological root of the English legal. Ethics does deal with moral character and is a branch of moral philosophy but is more specific than mere right vs wrong as the word itself is more concerned with practical application. Ethics is typically concerned with decisions and alignment to rules or codes of conduct. In this way ethics has the most value in a legal and reputational contexts. It is safe to think of ethics as an alignment to rules that may be explicitly stated or commonly accepted. Morals on the other hand are a broad term concerning right and wrong in accordance with societal norms and a personal value system. These terms can be at odds when a person is asked to follow rules whose violation bears legal consequence but such conduct defies their personal values, such as: loyalty, confidentiality, or religious canons. Sources * ethos - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos * logos - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos * ethics - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
  - rootw0rm 7y ago

temp99990 7y ago

Hard to be surprised. I am nowhere near the top of any corporate ladder, but having worked in several large well-known unicorns in SF I am more confident than ever that it takes a certain person capable of playing political games, pushing others down, taking credit for others work, etc. in order to climb the ladder.

najarvg 7y ago
Higher up the ladder you go in any organization, the more likely you are, to find the dark triad of personality - narcissism, psychopathy and machiavellianism [1] There has also been academic interest in exploring with narcissistic leadership types and their impacts. Here is a review of other studies examining these and impacts, frameworks for future studies etc. [2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace [2] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437163/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437163/
- noahth 7y ago
  almost makes you wonder why we build ladders that tall in the first place, doesn't it?
  - whenchamenia 7y ago
    Because they often reach value. Shareholders seldom quibble over anything but front page news ethics issues.
greenpresident 7y ago
Celia Moore[0] has the same opinion: Being able to effortlessly act immorally makes you more likely to rise to the top for the reasons you name. Afterwards, people will imitate that behaviour, giving rise to a corrupt corporate culture. [0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-007-9447-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-007-9447-8
skrebbel 7y ago

cbsmith 7y ago

Interesting... I thought this was about the isolation of the folks at the top from the rest of the organization. Instead it was just about morals, which, yeah... You can have great morals and yet still be tone deaf.

iconjack 7y ago

Red McCombs is turning in his grave.

netcan 7y ago

in 2018, 39% left due to ethical violations This seems like an incredible number. If the number one reason for bus drivers or real estate agents leaving the job was "ethical violations," it'd be some sort of moral crisis.