Articles by Dr. Marshall Colt

"Courage Makes Up a Leader"

"Loyalty: Where Do You Draw the Line?"

"Whistleblowing 101: A How To' Primer"

"Don't Let a Lawsuit Ruin Your Entire Day"

"Why Lying Can Be a Tricky Business"

"Courage Makes Up a Leader"

The Denver Post -- November 9, 1997

Courage.  Dan Rather chose that word to conclude his newscasts several years ago...until he thought better of it.  The nation balked, not at the word, but at the delivery--which didn't ring true.  For courage is not a word to be spoken with a smile for blithe inspiration.  It is a rare quality, extremely difficult to earn, requiring uncommon strength of character.  Many aspire, few achieve.

Courage is more than fortitude.  The latter is "hanging in there" when the going gets tough.  When life doesn't go our way, we draw on fortitude to keep going.  Courage, however, is the assertive acting out of a belief or principle.  It is more than staying the course.  It is a bold rudder command to radically change the course of events.

As business leaders in an oftentimes unjust world, we must not pay simple lip service to courage, but seek to embody it in our everyday challenges.  Frequently a formidable task, with serious risks, it is the risking which gives courage its heroic quality.

Courage is acting with fear, not without it.  It's doing the right thing when your stomach is in knots, when adrenaline is forcing you to act boldly or get the hell out of there.  It is frequently a selfless act, sacrificing the best interest and safety of oneself for a greater good, sometimes paying a hefty price in the process.  Yet, the courageous win far more often than they lose.  While it takes "guts," in essence, courage is really LOVE.  Love of justice, love of principle, love of people... above ourselves.  It's what you'd do if you knew your kids were watching.

People rightly look to their leaders to make correct decisions and actuate them.  That's what leadership entails.  A leader inherently says, "I have enough courage (love) to lead the way."   Leadership calls for not only successful accomplishments, but doing so with the best welfare of all constantly in mind.  It requires courage on behalf of others, even in the day-to-day battles against bureaucracy, injury and injustice.

For courage is a continuum.  It runs from the bravest feats of physical daring to the risking of one's career on a point of principle.   Admiral Arleigh Burke said, "A man who doesn't have the courage to stand up for what he believes to be right in his own friendly councils, will not stand up on the battlefield for what he deems to be right...a man will not fight for principles unless he fights for principles in all arenas, friendly as well as unfriendly."

Courage can be lonely for it often calls for acting contrary to a larger, often more powerful, force.  Will any of us ever forget the sight of that lone Chinese civilian in early June, 1989 who stood, unarmed, in front of a column of government tanks, blocking their advance?  The physical and moral courage of one individual could not be illustrated more graphically.  The image fills us with both fear for his safety and pride in his action.  He is the pictorial personification of courage and we are awed.

Courageous business leaders fight for justice, the truth and the betterment of all.  They intimately love, and through that love, uphold those values.  They "stand for something," even if it means standing alone.   Inaction, or the failure to take a stand, possibly to preserve one's career, is not characteristic of a true leader; and in the end, those people fail.  True leadership requires the courage to follow through on what you stand for each and every day.  For a life without standing for something is not a life, it's an existence.

So we must ask ourselves at day's end, if push came to shove, did we push back for rightness, for what was just, even at our own expense?   We expect that of our leaders: a job courageously done, standing up, fighting the tough fight when it presents itself.  We must expect no less of ourselves.

While an honest (wo)man is the noblest work of God, the courageous live forever.  Reflect on the need for courage in our leaders and in ourselves.  The kids are watching.

"Loyalty: Where do you draw the line?"

The Denver Business Journal -- April 3-9, 1998

The subject first came to mind watching Nixon's staffers grapple with what to do.  Years later, I declined a client's request to take a gig for which I knew I wasn't the right man.  "What, isn't there any loyalty in this town?" she replied.  I've thought often about what I said back to her ever since....

What is loyalty, anyway?  What does it require?  What are its limits?   Where is the line between loyalty and disloyalty; what causes or justifies one to cross it?  What level of loyalty does one owe the company or boss, particularly when asked to behave unethically?

"All the president's (wo)men" face these questions now in the Washington soap, "Days of Our Lies."  Cigarette executives will learn the price of company loyalty if their butts are hauled into criminal court.  The world's biggest health care firm fights widespread Medicare fraud charges.  How "loyal" will its employees be before a grand jury?  Such sagas can teach much.

From childhood, we are taught to venerate loyalty and not "snitch" on anybody. For to be loyal is somehow to be noble.  But it's not that simple.   Unless blind, loyalty is inherently a mutual responsibility agreement sealed with trust.  Parties are loyal to each other in return for some benefit--happiness, love, hard work, security, business advantage.  As a quid pro quo, there are times loyalty fades to nothingness.  No love from your family, no loyalty.  No caring from your company, no loyalty.  The company without loyalty to its customers receives none in return.  As the American biographer, James Parton, wrote, "Fidelity is seven-tenths of business success."

Loyalty is relative in terms of point-of-view and eventualities.  It is a function of the situation and time.  A traitor is only so to her compatriots.  Her collaborators regard her heroic.  The outcome of events often decides whether one is judged loyal or scorned as treacherous.  Benedict Arnold would have quite the opposite historical reputation had the American Revolution failed.

The concept of loyalty is further compounded by the wide differences in degree of commitment: how tenacious the loyal when called to defend the object of loyalty.   This requirement of vindication points up loyalty's most ethereal side when we see it do battle with conscience and personal gain.  Would you lie to keep your boss out of jail?  A "small" lie to get your boss's job?  Would you lie to keep your child out of jail?

"Fidelity is the sister of justice," said the Roman poet, Horace.  While closely related, the latter is properly blind.  Loyalty, however, ought be constantly vigilant to incursions of injustice and unethical behavior.  It is the ethics of our choices, and the ends we go to uphold them, that imparts loyalty its virtue.

We are loyal to many things at once--family, friends, our boss, our ethics.  We must continually weigh one against the others.  They weigh differently.  Despite their chronic disparagement, the best lawyers, for example, simultaneously balance loyalty to the law, their client, their firm and their own ethics.  They must constantly monitor their loyalties and question their validity.  We all should do likewise. Loyalty is a virtue when placed wisely and defended courageously.  One may be fairly judged by his loyalties, for they will reveal his principles.

Actors often use "the magic If..." to envision their character in an imagined situation.  They thus portray their roles with more integrity.  Astute businesses do contingency planning to "what if?" what to do in a crisis; so do astute people.  Perhaps some premeditation about what you would do if caught between a rock and a hard place might help your decision-making, should you ever find yourself   in a "loyalty bind."

It matters less which "Willy" we believe in the current Beltway morality play.   It matters more the lessons we draw from it.  We know what happened to Nixon's loyalists with their tragic tenet, "My President, right or wrong."  We'll see what happens to Clinton's.

Oh, I forever lost that client I turned down.  My response to her?   "Loyalty doesn't require the loyal to go against what they believe is right."  Perhaps not the best retort, but it's what came to me at the time.   What would you have said?

Denver Post, July 21, 1998:  Stressing loyalty.  And an upsurge of stress of all kinds is sapping workers' loyalty to their employers, a new national survey found.  "The level of stress among the workforce is skyrocketing, said David Stum, president of Aon Consulting's Loyalty Institute, of Ann Arbor, Mich.  What's more, the evidence points to a significant correlation between job stress and loyalty decline.  Workers who suffer stress are "significantly less committed" than other employees to their companies, Stum said.

 "Whistleblowing 101: A 'How To' Primer"

The Denver Business Journal -- July 10-16, 1998

"You know how to whistle, don't you, Steve?  You just put your lips together and blow." That's how Lauren Bacall described whistling to Humphrey Bogart in the 1944 film, "To Have and Have Not."  Unfortunately, blowing the whistle in business is not that easy.   Often fraught with danger, it sometimes requires uncommon courage.

Prudent questions for potential whistleblowers first include: What motivates you?  The money some organizations and governments promise whistleblowers?  Revenge?  Ethics?  Or some combination?  Will you be comfortable with your decision in the future?  Do you have evidence of clearly illegal or unethical acts?  Or are you unethically just "naming names" of those with whom you simply disagree?

If indeed your heart's in the right place, your sense of justice will motivate you.  Recall former Transportation Department Inspector General Mary Schiavo and ValuJet.  Unless you're of the "It's not my job" ilk, you'll do what's right.  For the difficult roads in life are usually the best ones.  And most of us own mirrors.

Luckily, too, there are some safeguards.  OSHA protects employees, who report health and safety violations, from employer retaliation.   Congress is considering The Aviation and Safety Protection Act of 1997 (HR 915/S 100), ensuring the same in that industry.  There are others.

Yet, too, are there risks: losing your job, unresponsive agencies who may not protect you, the emotional and mental cost to you and your family, friends may ostracize you, and of course, retaliation.  As Hemingway noted, you can get still get bit by a dead bee.

Jeffrey Wigand, former Vice-President for the Brown and Williamson tobacco company, helped the FDA get evidence that cigarettes were drug delivery devices.  But he lost a $300,000 job and the prospect of ever being hired again as a high-level researcher.  His marriage ended, and he was reportedly dogged by tobacco industry detectives and sued by Brown and Williamson.  Last year he was teaching high school science for a $30,000.  However, as one familiar with whistleblowing put it, "Get out of situations that are harmful to you, regardless of the money involved."

The great achievements in history are almost always accomplished by the courageous.  Whistleblowers act courageously to protect others.   For the essence of whistleblowing is, in the end, about courage: to have or have not.

"Don't Let a Lawsuit Ruin Your Entire Day"

The Denver Business Journal -- August 7-13, 1998

Shortly after 3am, June 3, 1969, the USS Frank E. Evans was cut in half by the Australian aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, in the South China Sea.  The destroyer had inexplicably turned in front of the Melbourne.  The forward half of the Evans sank in three minutes with heavy loss of life.  Her Commanding Officer woke up in the water.

His written Night Orders to the Officer-of-the-Deck specified he was to be awakened if the Evans changed course.  Tragically, LTjg Rodger Ramsey failed to do so, reportedly because he was afraid to make the call.

Scores of men died, the Evans was gravely wounded and the career of her "CEO," Commander Albert S. McLemore, was over.  All because an "employee" didn't feel safe enough to communicate vital information to "management."

Ship drivers have an old saying: "A collision at sea can ruin your entire day."  An employee's lawsuit can do that and much more.  To avoid a "collision" between employee and employer, well-written "night orders" alone won't suffice.  Extra steps are necessary to ensure policies and procedures are faithfully executed, lest one wake up in the water.

Yet, how does a CEO ensure this? For many employees feel, accurately or not, that they cannot trust their employer.  By reporting "bad" news of fraud or other abusive behavior, they fear retaliation in its many forms.  For example, 9to5, the National Association of Working Women, reports receiving thousands of calls each year from anguished workers who say they are being sexually harassed at work, but are afraid to complain.

A wise and caring CEO seeks to eradicate such fear.   A prudent CEO knows hearing the truth from employees is crucial to ethical business success and can also avert traumatic and expensive lawsuits.

Regarding sexual harassment, two recent Supreme Court rulings (Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton) put companies at risk for litigation now more than ever.  Notably, neither Ellerth nor Faragher complained to management before they sued.

The Court made clear that employers are responsible for the sexual misconduct of their employees, even if the employer knew nothing of the improper behavior.  Employers must now anticipate misconduct and take proactive steps to prevent it.  If you're a CEO, here are ways prevent a lawsuit from ruining your entire day:

- Review policies.  Arrange for an outside audit of your current policies and procedures regarding waste, fraud and abusive behavior.  An objective review will impartially address the sufficiency of your existing policies and practices regarding both prevention and employee reporting.

- Spread the word.  Widely promulgate your policies.  Conduct frequent "rights and responsibilities" training.   Employees should be individually counseled on the company's policies concerning improper behavior and what they should do if they learn of any.

- Walk the talk.  Make clear by personal example that you will not tolerate waste, fraud or abusive behavior anywhere in the company.  Emphatically reiterate your ethics often.

- Seek feedback.  Frequently ask employees, at all levels, if everything is okay.  Ensure all understand you sincerely want to know if anything improper is going on.

- Document everything.  Keep records concerning issuance of company policies, promulgation of procedures, preemptive counseling, training, requests for feedback, etc.

- Most importantly.  Contract for ombudsman services--outside the company--allowing employees to confidentially report alleged waste, fraud or abuse, without fear of retaliation.  Charges may then be objectively investigated by an ethical, experienced professional, unbiased by issues influencing those within the company.  The ombudsman will impartially report any substantiated wrongdoing to management, without identifying the reporting employee.   Corrective, preemptive action may then be taken, benefiting both employee and the company.  For mere pennies a day per employee, an outside ombudsman is also an invaluable "insurance policy" against employee lawsuits, which even the best internal mechanisms and Employee Assistance Programs can't provide.

Twenty-nine years ago, seventy-four men died in calm seas on a moonlit night in June.  All because an "employee" didn't feel safe enough to communicate vital information to "management."  It was completely avoidable.

Every day employee lawsuits cost companies millions and some CEOs their jobs.  Many because an employee didn't feel safe enough to communicate vital information to management.  They, too, are completely avoidable.

"Why Lying Can Be a Tricky Business"

The Denver Business Journal -- September 25-October 1, 1998

Dateline: Prague, Czech Republic.

On a brand new highway, two Czech policie stop a U.S. businessman driving toward the German border.  "Grosse probleme! Grosse probleme!" one bellows.  They claim he lacks an autobahn vignette (sticker) on his German car, allowing him on the highway.  When the businessman points to a vignette just bought, the policie lie, claiming it's no good.  They demand a 5,000 koruna ($170) fine.

Czech policie legally collect traffic fines on the spot, but reportedly also extort money from rich Germans, under threat of jail.   Though having plenty, the businessman says he has few koruna. He thus avoids jail for a mere 700.  The policie are extortionists, they lied.  The businessman keeps his money, but he lied, too.  A case study in ethics.

Here in the land of the fifty-cent beer and in other less-developed countries, the law of supply and demand becomes quite visceral.   Stomachs churn from both hunger and fear.  Money often means the difference between surviving or not, as it does in any poorer area.  Ethics becomes relative.

Most reading this column work to "make a buck" to improve their standard of living: a new car, better house, higher tuitions, deserved vacations.  But in this former East Bloc country, "making a koruna" often means not just a better life, but survival itself.  Getting what you can out of another is not occasional, it's allegedly the standard work ethic; particularly if you're a member of the policie.

It would be inaccurate and unfair to label the Czech people or even its policie by the actions of two.  Nor might all American businessmen behave as this one did.  Yet it's an example of "When Ethics Collide."

Customs differ from country to country, culture to culture.  When do such differences justify behavior and when are they properly superceded by a more generally accepted standard?  Under the guise of cultural differences and economic hardship, should lying in the Czech Republic be more acceptable than in America?  Defending against extortion, should the businessman's lie to the Czech policie be more acceptable than lying to U.S. police?

Throughout Europe, most don't understand the U.S. concern over President Clinton's lying to the American people.  The purpose of the lie and the content of the deceit apparently excuse it.  Just as the purpose of the lie and content of the deceit apparently absolved the Czech policie.  After all, we're talking about only a few korunas here, perhaps to feed a child.  Do we then excuse the businessman's lie, based on its purpose and content?

We seem to judge lying, not with regard to lying itself, but rather its purpose and content.  Few might argue with lying to save one's child, for example. Therefore, when is lying okay and when is it not?  Where's the line?

Honesty can be practiced to a fault, of course.   Witness "est" (Ehrhard Seminar Training) of the '70s, for those aged enough to remember.  est graduates believed whatever thought passed through one's mind deserved voice.  Yet few would succeed in business following that route.

Perhaps the key lies in what harm, if any, is done.   The polls indicate most people don't feel harmed by the President's lying, because they don't feel harmed by his infidelity or covert dalliances.  They do feel harmed, though, by Saddam Hussein's lying because he's covertly making weapons of mass destruction, targeted at us.  Tolerance of lying thus lies on a continuum.

As the European Union edges toward adopting the euro and the world continues to shrink, it is likely more common cultural ethics will follow.   As the techno-communication revolution leads us into a new sociology, can a more shared standard of principled behavior be far behind?  Yet defining acceptable and unacceptable lying will still challenge us.

On his flight home, the businessman selects the film, "Wag the Dog."  The film proclaims the dog wags its tail because it's smarter than the tail, otherwise the tail would wag the dog.  Is it that liars mistakenly think they're smarter?

"A little lie that makes people feel better isn't really wrong," says a character in "Harriet the Spy."  That's certainly true.  So again, when does fibbing cross the line?  I invite your views.  No lie.