Category Archives: Politics

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid: Anything in Your Past Can and Will Be Held Against You (Even Without Corroboration You Did It)


skeletons-3639984_640

My last post on the Senate confirmation hearings regarding the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be a Supreme Court justice went live on September 10, 2018. Two days later, on September 12, an anonymous claim surfaced that he had sexually assaulted a teenage girl when he was in high school. Over the last two weeks, we’ve learned his accuser is Dr. Christine Blasey Ford of Palo Alto University.

Dr. Ford alleges a single instance of sexual assault more than 30 years ago when Judge Kavanaugh was still a minor and both of them were in high school. Many of the details surrounding her claim remain hazy, including the date (and even the year), the location, how many people were present, and who they were.

I do not mean to imply that the allegation does not involve a claim of serious misconduct. It does. But Dr. Ford’s delays in making this allegation, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s further delays in publicizing it even to other Senate Judicial Committee members, and the fact that Dr. Ford and her attorney have spent many days negotiating her appearance before the Senate Judicial Committee, all make it seem that the drama was primarily raised for political reasons.

As of this morning, September 24, 2018, when this post is published, it appears that Dr. Ford will testify about her assault charge on Thursday, September 27, before the Senate Judicial Committee. So as I write this, we don’t know the end of this story.

Dr. Ford appears to be a respected member of her professional community, just as Judge Kavanaugh is of his. When two opposing witnesses are both credible, and when the facts are so fuzzy, it is very difficult to ever determine the truth, even if they both testify under oath. Investigating any situation that occurred more than 30 years ago is challenging under the best of circumstances. Refuting—proving the negative of—a vague allegation about something that happened so long ago is almost impossible. (Perhaps this is why Senator Feinstein didn’t publicize the claim earlier.)

Based on what has been made public thus far, all that Judge Kavanaugh can say is what he has already said—he never behaved like that. He can’t claim he wasn’t at a particular place because the place hasn’t been identified. He can’t obtain denials from other witnesses, because the witnesses haven’t been clearly identified, though two males and one female who may or may not be people the accuser has mentioned have denied any knowledge of Judge Kavanaugh behaving in this fashion.

One of the most distressing aspects of this case for me is the grievous harm that can be done to a person’s lifetime reputation with so little evidence. In today’s 24/7 news cycle, social media publicizes every allegation almost instantaneously, and often presents these allegations as the truth. Things we did—or are alleged to have done—long in the past, in times and places we don’t even remember, can haunt us in ways these incidents never did before. We essentially cannot outlive anything we’ve ever said or done. Even if we deny we ever said or did it.

In some situations, when many witnesses allege someone engaged in similar wrongful behavior, as in many of the recent #MeToo claims against public figures, we can comfortably conclude that the misconduct probably happened in at least some of the times and places claimed. But where there is only a single wrongful act alleged, and when that act supposedly occurred over 30 years ago, it is hard to accept that the incident should have an impact on a person’s future, unless there is some further corroboration.

“I believe the woman” seems to be the accepted response to all claims of sexual harassment and assault these days. Though most allegations of sexual misconduct have some basis in fact, I have personally investigated at least two cases in which women did not tell the truth. I am therefore reluctant to automatically believe the claimant, unless there is more than just her word.

In one case I handled, a female employee claimed that a high-level male employee had harassed her repeatedly. When I first learned of the complaint, I leaped to the conclusion it was probably true and started thinking about how the company should handle the man’s exit from the company. But within thirty minutes after I started interviewing the complainant, she alleged that at least six or eight other men had harassed her, all in vague ways (“he looked at me weird,” “he smiled at me in the stairwell”). It became clear after very little questioning  that she was paranoid and mentally unstable. She might have believed she’d been harassed, but she was not credible to a rational person.

In another situation, another female employee claimed that her male supervisor had harassed her in a retail store where there were multiple people present. None of the other eleven employees in the store had seen anything untoward. Moreover, her allegation was made on the Monday after the Clarence Thomas hearings, giving me a strong suspicion she’d made a false claim because of what she’d heard over the weekend. It turned out the accuser wanted more work hours than her supervisor had given her, and thought her complaint would give her leverage.

In addition to my personal experience, there are other, more public situations of wrongful accusations of sexual misconduct. One notable example was the false claims against the Duke lacrosse players. Those young men saw their promising careers go up in flames, because a lying complainant was supported by an unethical prosecutor.

I am not saying Dr. Ford’s claim is false. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. It is entirely possible her memory is as she has described and he has forgotten whatever happened between them. In that case, neither of them would be lying. The testimony this next week—if it takes place—might prove convincingly what happened, if anything. Although if we only have her memory and not his, I doubt it.

What I am saying is that before an allegation about a single 30-year-old act stops the career of a man who has no other such blemish on his record, we should require more than one person’s say-so. We should require other witnesses, or contemporaneous documents, or corroborating physical evidence, or something else that makes us comfortable ignoring his thirty years of exemplary behavior.

Because if we allow a single, ancient, unverified and unverifiable claim against an otherwise upright citizen to besmirch his reputation, then none of us is safe. Our fathers and husbands and sons are not safe from allegations of long-ago harassment. Any of us might be slammed by a claim that we made a sexist or racist or homophobic comment in the past. Whether we did it or not. Whether we’ve changed and matured or not. Whether what we believed at the time was what most of society believed or not.

Just ask Brendon Eich.

Is that the type of world you want to live in? I don’t.

LATE-BREAKING: As of Sunday evening, September 23, 2018, a second allegation has surfaced of sexual misconduct by Judge Kavanaugh, this time in his college days. In addition, Judge Kavanaugh has his old calendars which might cover time of the alleged high-school incident. Obviously, this story continues to develop.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Philosophy, Politics

An Open Letter to Senators Regarding Supreme Court Nomination Hearings


OldSenateChamber_bannerimageDear Senators:

I have followed a lot of Supreme Court hearings over the last forty years. They are getting worse, and they make every one of you on the Senate Judicial Committee look bad, as well as the rest of you who make unsubstantiated comments about the judicial nominees. Those of you supporting the candidate sound smarmy, and those of you objecting to the nominee seem unhinged.

The downturn in civility displayed in Senate nomination hearings began with Judge Robert Bork in 1987. Judge Bork was a well-respected jurist and professor, albeit definitely a conservative. Plenty of legal scholars had disagreed with Judge Bork’s interpretations of the Constitution before he was nominated, but for the first time a judicial nominee was savaged within minutes after his nomination was announced.

The Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991 became a full-on “he said, she said” debate over allegations of sexual harassment, of the type that can rarely be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction, and certainly not in the circus atmosphere that prevailed during those hearings. The allegations against Justice Thomas were not resolved, and no one really expected them to be resolved—the intent was to smear the nominee’s character.

Neil Gorsuch got off reasonably easily during his confirmation hearings in 2017. But when Senate Democrats attempted to filibuster the vote by the full Senate, Republicans completed what the Democrats had begun for lower court nominations and abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments. So there is no point in worrying about a super-majority. When one party controls the Senate and the Presidency, that party’s nominees are likely to be confirmed.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been run through the wringer this past week. Both conservatives and liberals have attested to his qualifications for the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, he has been called, among other things, a racist and a white supremacist.

During her confirmation hearings in 2009, Sonia Sotomayor was raked over the coals for speeches in which she had commented that she hoped “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion” than a white male. While the Republicans’ reactions to Justice Sotomayor’s comments were an overreaction to her prideful statement about her heritage, her statements more clearly revealed bias than the current allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.

Judge Kavanaugh has been accused of being a racist for writing a memo on racial profiling that said the government should not engage in racial profiling. He has been accused of having white supremacist beliefs because one of his former clerks—a Mexican-American of partially Jewish descent—made a (probably involuntary) gesture that looked like a white supremacist symbol.

The Senate Judicial Committee is scheduled to vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination on September 13, and there will later be debate on the full floor of the Senate soon. I fully anticipate that the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are not over yet. Our nation will have to tolerate more of this indecent character assassination by Senators.

Both parties need to dial it down during these judicial hearings. Way down.

There is no point in Senators trying to show that any judicial nominee is evil incarnate. It is highly unlikely that Satan would ever be nominated to the Supreme Court, even by a President of the opposite party as you.

The Constitution gives Senators the power to “advise and consent” to judicial appointments. The Constitution doesn’t say you need a reason to withhold your consent.

So just vote against the individual. It is your right as a Senator. As Colin Kaepernick now advocates, just do it.

Don’t needlessly slander the character of the nominee to make your base happy. It belittles you more than the candidate.

Sincerely,

A concerned and irritated citizen with moderate knowledge of the nomination process

* * * * *

Readers, what about our current judicial nomination process irritates you?

2 Comments

Filed under Law, Politics

Labor Policy Changes Under the Trump Administration


Most of the news about the Trump Administration in recent days has involved developments arising out of the special counsel’s investigation. But as Labor Day approaches, it is worth examining what the administration has accomplished in the labor arena. Many stories about changes in regulations are getting less media attention than they might have, had we not had daily stories about sensational prosecutions or pleas and inflammatory tweets about Russia’s meddling and campaign finance violations.

Here are a few of the more significant changes in labor policy under President Trump:

DOL seal.pngFair Labor Standards Act: Although the 80-year-old Fair Labor Standards Act remains largely unchanged, the Department of Labor has again started using DOL opinion letters, which the Obama Administration had abolished. Opinion letters provide guidance that employers can rely on for interpretation of the regulations, so returning to this practice is a help. Moreover, many of the Bush Administration opinion letters have been reinstated.

Furthermore, in June 2017 the Trump Administration withdrew the Obama-era interpretation on joint employment. The joint employment interpretation—designed to make large franchisors liable for the practices of independently owned franchisees—was roundly criticized by employers, so the return to the former DOL interpretation of when joint employment arises is a welcome relief for employers.

The Trump Administration has also rolled back rulemaking under the white collar overtime exemption and the tip pooling regulations. In both cases, DOL is now attempting to provide employers with broader exemptions and greater relief from regulation.

Still, any changes to current FLSA regulations are likely to engender future litigation, so even if DOL’s Wage & Hour Division issues favorable changes, employers will have a long time to wait until there is certainty in this area.

Broader Range of Health Plans for Small Businesses: As a result of a Trump executive order seeking to reverse or limit portions of Obamacare that can be addressed by regulation, DOL has proposed letting more small firms and individuals form association health plans (AHPs). Large businesses have the market power to get good discounts from health care providers; the proposal is intended to let small businesses, including self-employed workers, pool their populations to get similar discounts through an AHP. Under this proposal, companies or individuals involved in the same type of business or located in the same region could band together to form AHPs.

Any attempts to broaden access to healthcare insurance should be encouraged, even if they do not satisfy all the benefit coverage requirements or other restrictions of Obamacare. More choice in insurance options will help employers of all sizes attract and retain employees.

Union Negotiations: The Trump Administration has pushed federal agencies with unionized workforces to reopen collective bargaining agreements with their public unions. Agencies have also been directed to move swiftly to fire poor performers. The Administration argues it is trying to streamline costly government bureaucracy and improve accountability of the federal workforce.

As with changes under the FLSA, litigation over these changes is likely. (In fact, on August 25, 2018, just as I was finalizing this post, a district court judge overturned some of the executive orders implementing them.)

In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (Sup. Ct. June 27, 2018), the Supreme Cout ruled against public unions in a different context (deciding that public employees could not be forced to pay union dues). This decision weakens public unions, and arguably indicates possible Supreme Court support for government efforts to push back against such unions. However, it remains to be seen whether the Court would help the Trump Administration roll back previously negotiated collective bargaining agreements.

And nothing in Janus changes how the NLRB deals with issues between private employers and their unions, which would be a more helpful area of focus during the next two years of the Trump Administration.

nlrb logoRestrictions on Employee Use of Employer Email: One helpful development for private employers that the Trump Administration has undertaken is that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has invited briefs on whether it should overrule Purple Communications, Inc., 361 NLRB 1050 (2014). The Board held in that case that employees had a presumptive right to use employer email systems on nonworking time for organizing and other protected communications under the National Labor Relations Act.  In Purple Communications, the Board overruled its earlier decisions holding that employers could maintain union-neutral policies regarding permissible uses of their email systems, even if these policies had the incidental effect of limiting use of those systems for union–related communications. Presumably, the NLRB is now considering a return to the holding of those prior cases.

This and other NLRB actions could have far-ranging impact on employers’ efforts to maintain union-free workplaces. However, NLRB policy in recent decades has tended to shift with the party affiliations of the five NLRB members, so whatever the current administration does could once again be overruled.

Application of Religious Freedom Principles to the Workplace: DOL is attempting to make it easier for federal contractors to claim religious beliefs as a defense against anti-LGBTQ discrimination complaints. Recent directives state that the federal government has a duty to protect religious exercise, not to impede it. The Administration has instructed the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) not to condition federal contracts “upon a recipient’s willingness to surrender his [or her] religiously impelled status.” Rather, faith-based organizations should be permitted to compete on a level playing field for federal contracts.

There will be a rulemaking process, so the impact of these directives may not be known for some time.

* * * * *

All in all, there have been some helpful changes at the DOL, the NLRB, and other labor policy-making agencies. However, much of the Obama Administration’s overreach in the labor arena remains in place.

Employers should encourage the current administration and Congress to pursue business-friendly policies designed to keep the economy growing. Perhaps the likelihood of continued media attention on the special prosecutor’s investigation will enable more good regulatory work to move labor laws and policy in directions conducive to business and employment growth.

But employers should also remain mindful of the need to comply with labor laws and regulations currently in effect.

What labor policies would you like to see changed and why?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics, Workplace

What Employers Should Expect on Immigration Issues for the Remainder of 2018


USCIS logoOne of the biggest impacts that the Trump Administration has had on the workplace is in the area of immigration. Although the need for foreign workers remains a huge issue for many U.S. employers, particularly those needing skilled technical workers, the Trump Administration has made it more difficult for foreign nationals to obtain the appropriate visas.  Even intracompany transfers are taking longer to process.

The Harris Poll conducted a survey in November and December 2017. Data from that survey indicated:

  • 70% of employers say having a global workforce is very or extremely important to their talent strategy
  • 53% of employers expect to hire more foreign nationals in 2018
  • 85% of employers say the current U.S. immigration system has impacted their hiring and retention strategies
  • 44 percent of employers say U.S. visa applications have become more difficult (up from 35 percent last year)
  • 58 percent of employers say their Requests for Evidence have increased
  • 42% of employers say the biggest change they have noticed over the last year has been increased foreign national anxiety and questions

See here for more from Envoy, a global immigration services provider, regarding the Harris Poll survey.

In today’s low unemployment environment, immigrant workers are one of the few ways employers have to increase their applicant pools—a necessary part of growing their businesses. Nevertheless, given the Trump Administration’s predilections, which begin with the President and his cabinet members, it is likely that employers will continue to struggle in their efforts to hire immigrant labor.

I have spoken with immigration attorneys who confirm that U.S. Citizenship and Immigraton Services have placed increased emphasis on Requests for Evidence, which has significantly slowed down the granting of visas for well-qualified foreign nationals.

Here are some likely immigration actions and decisions in the remainder of the year:

  • By the end of June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to issue a decision on the Trump Administration’s travel ban. This decision might clarify some of the limits of the Executive Branch in the area of immigration policy.
  • Congress and the President could strike a deal any time on the Dreamers (undocumented workers brought into the U.S. as children), which is likely to permit Dreamers to remain in the U.S., though with further actions to limit immigration in other areas or to enhance border security.
  • USCIS is likely to continue to scrutinize foreign nationals seeking work authorizations, particularly those seeking H1-B visas.
  • Similarly, there are likely to be more restrictions on visas for family members of foreign nationals already authorized to work in the U.S.
  • 2000px-U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement_(ICE)_Logo.svgMore workplace raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are likely to continue to increase the numbers of workplace raids, leading to more deportations of illegal workers.

For more on these efforts, see here and here.

Given heightened activity in the field of immigration enforcement, employers need to increase their vigilance on complying with immigration laws. Employers also need to be more proactive in seeking the foreign workers they need to be competitive. Here are a few specifics actions that employers should consider:

  • Conduct internal audits of I-9 forms, preferably with the help of outside counsel, so that any problems are properly addressed. A strong audit can provide a “safe harbor” and/or reduce fines if the government later determines that unauthorized workers are in fact employed by the company.
  • Start any visa applications in support of foreign nationals well in advance of the time the company needs the employee to begin working. Leave time to respond to Requests for Evidence, which USCIS is more likely to send than in prior years.
  • Monitor developments on the Administration’s travel ban, Dreamers, and other issues that might impact your workplace. Be prepared to act immediately to comply with any changes.
  • And remember that the U.S. immigration system is based on very detailed regulations, so be sure to use experts with knowledge of the changing immigration bureaucracy.

Increased scrutiny of immigrant visas and documentation impacts not only the ability to hire the types of skilled workers needed in a timely fashion, but also the morale of those already employed. Employers in areas most likely to face workplace raids or I-9 audits should address their employee relations issues as well as the staffing implications of the Administration’s policies.

What immigration issues have you experienced in your workforce recently?

Leave a comment

Filed under Human Resources, Management, Politics, Workplace

Alpha Dogs and Leadership


dogs-1231010_1280Because this blog was on hiatus all summer, I didn’t comment on the political stalemates and morasses during those months. And I’m not going to comment directly on the ongoing issues today. But what I saw over the summer—and what I continue to see this fall—reminds me of a situation I encountered many years ago involving “alpha dogs” in a corporate setting.

My work group attended a gender diversity program sometime in the mid-1990s. I was not in management at the time; I was one of several individual contributors who ranged widely in seniority. I was in the middle of the pack at the time.

One of the comments about gender differences that the facilitator made during this gender diversity session was that men often try to be the “alpha dog” in a meeting by one-upping the other men in the room. Women, on the other hand, care less if they are seen as the highest power in the room. (Keep in mind that this program took place decades before Sheryl Sandberg’s “Lean In” philosophy became vogue.)

I might have forgotten this “alpha dog” comment, except that a few days after the diversity program, I was talking about it with a male colleague, one of the more senior employees in our group. He freely admitted, “That’s why I have problems with [our male boss]. He and I both want to be the alpha dog.”

I thought about it. He was right—these two men did both try to be top dog. And trying to be the alpha dog wasn’t working for my colleague, because he didn’t have the corporate authority to pull it off. He wasn’t the boss, but he often tried to be.

I made a deliberate decision. As a fairly young and introverted female, seeking to be the alpha dog wasn’t going to work for me either. Therefore, I would consciously act like I was NOT the alpha dog. I would not overtly try to one-up other people I encountered in the workplace. I would defer to others intentionally. I would seek to provide good service to my colleagues and clients, rather than to command them. That didn’t mean letting others step all over me, but it did mean not being arrogant or seeking top billing on projects.

I’ve written before about “servant leadership,” a philosophy that advocates leading by serving others. I didn’t hear of that concept until ten or more years after the 1990s gender diversity program, but it resonated with me when I learned about it.

How did servant leadership work for me?

Generally, it worked well, at least through the middle years in my career. Over time, there were more and more times when I had to take command and make decisions. And occasionally, I didn’t get as much credit for my work as I thought I should have. But those times were less frequent than one might expect.

However, there were times after I moved into senior corporate roles when more of a command approach might have worked better. There were definitely people—mostly men, but a few women—who took advantage of my understated approach or who thought me weak. I could usually deflect them by being the best prepared person in the room, but there were a few jerks who only understood power, who only thought highly of other “alpha dogs” and sought to be the “alpha dog” with everyone except the CEO. They were never my favorite people, but sometimes I did have to flex my style to deal with them effectively.

dogs-1231008_640Unfortunately, many of today’s leaders—particularly the partisans on both sides of the aisle in Washington—seem to be of the “alpha dog” mentality. One-up-man-ship is all they understand. And so our nation has become increasingly polarized. If more of them would exercise servant leadership, we would all be better off.

What leadership style have you generally used? When have you had to flex your style?

Leave a comment

Filed under Diversity, Leadership, Management, Philosophy, Politics, Workplace

The Myth of 100 Days, and the Reality


presidential sealMuch of the news for the past couple of weeks has revolved around how is President Trump doing in his first one hundred days in office. President Trump himself set high expectations before he was inaugurated, and recently he has been trying to tamp down the importance of the 100 day marker. He hit that marker this past Saturday.

One hundred days is an arbitrary period. It is less than a year, less than one-twelfth of a president’s term of office. Nevertheless, it is used as a milestone not only for new Presidents but also for new corporate executives.

I’ve read many articles outlining what a new CEO or CFO or head of Human Resources—or any other “chief” of a corporate function, for that matter—ought to accomplish when he or she takes office. Here are just a few articles telling new executives what to do in their first one hundred days:

Five Myths of a CEO’s First 100 Days, by Roselinde Torres and Peter Tollman, January 30, 2012, in Harvard Business Review

Your First 100 Days as CEO—Eight Must-Avoid Traps, by Scott Weighart, Bates Communications

An Action Plan for New CEOs During the First 100 Days, by M.S.Rao, October 8, 2014, on TrainingMag.com

Assuming Leadership: The First 100 Days, by Patrick Ducasse and Tom Lutz, The Boston Consulting Group

Rather than go through all the recommendations, which they are not entirely consistent, I want to focus on two topics: setting up for long-term success and strong communications. These, in my opinion, are critical marks of new leaders.

1. Long-Term Success

One area in which there is a difference of opinion among the experts is whether to strive for “quick wins” or whether to focus on setting up for success in the long term. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, and a few quick wins can win over supporters who will improve the chances of long-term success.

It all depends on whether the wins are what the organization needs or wants, or whether the new leader achieves them by running roughshod over the organization. If the early wins are gained at the expense of long-standing corporate culture, then the new executive will be seen as insensitive.

I believe that long-term success is more important than early victories. It is better for the new executive to be seen as listening to stakeholders than to introduce change without an understanding of the impact on the organization. Obviously, if there are some early wins that most stakeholders approve of, then the new CEO should undertake them immediately. But these actions will have the best impact if they are consistent with the CEO’s long-term strategic plan and vision.

2. Communications

Most commentators agree that it is critical for the new executive to take control of communications, but to balance listening with revealing his or her own vision and priorities. The executive must be seen as a leader, but also as someone who understands the organization’s needs. Particularly for executives hired from the outside, it is critical that the new leader not come across as arrogant and dismissive of the company’s past.

Building relationships with those in the organization is essential. That requires an open dialogue in which the new executive really listens to the stakeholders and also reveals his or her own intentions and beliefs. The incoming CEO will have his or her preferred communications style, but must also adapt to the needs of the organization. Also, it is important to set realistic expectations on what will and will not change and how fast change will come.

So, on these two points, how is President Trump doing?

Each of us will have our own answer to this question. In my opinion, President Trump gets decidedly mixed results.

He has had some short-term successes (the confirmation of Justice Gorsuch, the limited strike on Syria) and some failures (the travel ban, the failure of the House health care reform proposal). But I don’t believe he has defined his vision of long-term success clearly enough. We don’t yet know what he hopes to accomplish in four years, which campaign promises he means to keep and which he does not . . . and maybe also how he has changed since taking office. Without this clarity, it is hard to decide if he is focused on the long term.

On the communications front, his core audience still seems supportive of the President, but he does not appear to be expanding his reach beyond his base. People who didn’t like candidate Trump tweeting now find tweets by President Trump are even scarier. Maybe he doesn’t care about broadening his appeal, but I think it would be wise if he did. And to broaden his appeal, he will have to communicate in more than 140 characters. He will have to appear to listen as well as to speak and to speak at length and with heart.

As with any change, some people will show patience toward President Trump, others will have no patience. Some will be skeptical, but silent. Others will be vocally displeased. Much like what happens in any organization when a new executive enters the scene.

What do you think of President Trump’s first one hundred days?

Leave a comment

Filed under Leadership, Politics

Apologize When You Make a Mistake


I’ve written on a couple of occasions about apologies (see here and here). In one post, I said that lawyers often don’t recommend apologies because of the potential legal risk.

But when you’re wrong, you’re wrong. Sometimes, an apology is the best solution.

United logoTwo situations have been in the news recently which have caused public relations disasters. In one, United Airlines bumped a man from his seat on a flight because the airline needed the seat to transport crew to another airport to fly another plane. The passenger refused to deplane, and he was injured when airport security physically removed him.

The United Airlines CEO apologized, but his apology was deemed insincere.

Sean_Spicer_(32293609264)_(cropped)

Press Secretary Sean Spicer. Photo by Gage Skidmore.

In the second situation, Sean Spicer, President Trump’s Press Secretary, compared Assad of Syria to Hitler, but said that while Assad had gassed his people, Hitler had not—obviously forgetting the millions of people Hitler had gassed in concentration camps.

Mr. Spicer apologized, but his apology was deemed insufficient.

Mr. Spicer’s error was a mistake of fact. He knows full well—and he should have remembered—that Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust. I’m not a Trump fan, nor a Spicer fan, and I cringed when I heard Mr. Spicer’s remark. But I assume his mind deserted him for a moment. Within hours he apologized for his mistake.

In my opinion, that should be the end of the story. But opponents of the Trump Administration do not seem willing to let it go. How can anyone forget the Holocaust? they ask. Well, people’s brains do stupid stuff sometimes. Hasn’t yours?

Shouldn’t we be forgiven our stupidity?

In my opinion, the United Airlines situation is the harder case. This was not a simple error of fact. It was a matter of corporate policy—United bumps passengers when their seats are needed for smooth operation of the airline. And airlines are permitted by law to physically remove passengers from airplanes when the passengers are argumentative or combative.

But somehow, humanity got lost in this situation. A doctor in his sixties, who said he needed to see patients the next day, who had paid for a ticket and had a valid boarding pass, and who was already seated in his assigned seat, was injured when he protested the airline’s random revocation of his seat assignment. (I’ve read conflicting reports on whether United had the right to bump someone who was not technically on an “overbooked” flight.)

Then the CEO said the airline would “re-accommodate” the passenger. This word choice was unfortunate—the man had not been accommodated in the first place, so how could he be re-accommodated? How would “re-accommodation” help his injuries? In addition, the initial corporate statement blamed the passenger for being disruptive.

I think back to the post I wrote about a 2012 post in Contented Cows, in which the author stated that when you need to take accountability for a mistake, you should

  • Apologize quickly and without excuses or weasel words, and
  • Clean up the mess you made.

In this case, Sean Spicer apologized directly, without much in the way of weasel words, though he perhaps tried to explain himself too much. He is trying to clean up the mess he made, and we should allow him to do so.

By contrast, United Airlines made excuses, used weasel words, and shifted the blame in its initial attempt to apologize. It will probably take them a long time to clean up the mess they made.

When have you had to apologize? How well do you think you handled it?

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Leadership, Management, Politics