I was expecting blowback from yesterday's post on younger tech workers and ethical behavior.
It came.
When should you be concerned about your reputation and professionalism in a close-knit community?
BEFORE you take a action that will - rightly - make you look bad later.
My advice stands. Apologize.
As I stated in an earlier post: there can be no daylight between your policy (the way you act) and your PR (the way you want others to see you.)
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Ethics and knowledgework: Do younger staff need a lesson on the Golden Rule?
This fall, I gave a talk at Tucson Startup Drinks on the need for legal formalities in small businesses. Those who own a business (i.e., incorporated, with employees and real obligations) knew exactly where I was coming from. Those who are currently employees had a different take - in my view, because they have never faced the painful and costly experience of having an employee or contractual agreement go bad, with all the attendant drama and chaos.
Recently, our good friends at Company A were compelled to terminate four employees who were conspiring - on company time and equipment - to start a competing firm.
Employees 1, 2, 3, and 4 are talented people. I liked them. They're also very young, and arguably got their start at Company A.
That start - and the visibility they began to acquire in a professional realm - was provided by Company A, whose president and owner has invested years of the sort of hard work that only other business owners understand. Taking risks, paying taxes, footing legal services, rent, insurance, and all the myriad not-fun chores that go into running a business.
The necessary termination of Employees 1, 2, 3, and 4 left Company A in the lurch during production of a very large project. (To its credit, Company A's remaining loyal staffers pitched in and made sure the project delivered successfully.)
Employees 1, 2, 3, and 4 immediately started Company B. As a parting shot, one of them posted a tweet slamming his ex-employer's blog with a link to a porn site.
Company B is now gleefully pursuing business, making nice to those who don't know the sordid details.
Interface Guru will never recommend Company B, no matter how good its future work may be, because they broke rule one: Do no harm.
Legal contracts and agreements - such as noncompetes and non-disclosure agreements - must be executed and enforced. But they are only as good as the ethics of those who sign them.
More seasoned employees are less likely to engage in this sort of nonsense because they know better. Enlightened self-interest, at a minimum, keeps more mature workers from burning bridges. Younger staff may feel immune. In time they will learn that, as that great philosopher Justin Timberlake would say, "what goes around comes back around."
This story could have had a happy ending. The future employees of Company B could have respected their employer - and themselves - enough to depart on good terms. They could have built on that relationship into the future.
Instead, they have insulted and damaged the company that gave them their start. And they've proen that they don't understand the sort of relationships that are the heart of sustainable, long-term businesses.
If Employees 1, 2, 3, and 4 were willing to deceive their employer, then start a competing business, how will they treat their clients? We're not about to let any of our clients, who we value for more than just the value of a contract, find out.
My advice to Company B: Apologize. And resolve to act ethically from now on. Else, one day you may well find the shoe on the other foot.
Life is full of hit-and-run types who seem successful. They may make money, but their consciences - if they have them - will never be clear. And at some point, everyone will know about the bodies they buried.
Ethics may not mean anything to some people, but they means the world to me, and to the good people that work for and with me.
Recently, our good friends at Company A were compelled to terminate four employees who were conspiring - on company time and equipment - to start a competing firm.
Employees 1, 2, 3, and 4 are talented people. I liked them. They're also very young, and arguably got their start at Company A.
That start - and the visibility they began to acquire in a professional realm - was provided by Company A, whose president and owner has invested years of the sort of hard work that only other business owners understand. Taking risks, paying taxes, footing legal services, rent, insurance, and all the myriad not-fun chores that go into running a business.
The necessary termination of Employees 1, 2, 3, and 4 left Company A in the lurch during production of a very large project. (To its credit, Company A's remaining loyal staffers pitched in and made sure the project delivered successfully.)
Employees 1, 2, 3, and 4 immediately started Company B. As a parting shot, one of them posted a tweet slamming his ex-employer's blog with a link to a porn site.
Company B is now gleefully pursuing business, making nice to those who don't know the sordid details.
Interface Guru will never recommend Company B, no matter how good its future work may be, because they broke rule one: Do no harm.
Legal contracts and agreements - such as noncompetes and non-disclosure agreements - must be executed and enforced. But they are only as good as the ethics of those who sign them.
More seasoned employees are less likely to engage in this sort of nonsense because they know better. Enlightened self-interest, at a minimum, keeps more mature workers from burning bridges. Younger staff may feel immune. In time they will learn that, as that great philosopher Justin Timberlake would say, "what goes around comes back around."
This story could have had a happy ending. The future employees of Company B could have respected their employer - and themselves - enough to depart on good terms. They could have built on that relationship into the future.
Instead, they have insulted and damaged the company that gave them their start. And they've proen that they don't understand the sort of relationships that are the heart of sustainable, long-term businesses.
If Employees 1, 2, 3, and 4 were willing to deceive their employer, then start a competing business, how will they treat their clients? We're not about to let any of our clients, who we value for more than just the value of a contract, find out.
My advice to Company B: Apologize. And resolve to act ethically from now on. Else, one day you may well find the shoe on the other foot.
Life is full of hit-and-run types who seem successful. They may make money, but their consciences - if they have them - will never be clear. And at some point, everyone will know about the bodies they buried.
Ethics may not mean anything to some people, but they means the world to me, and to the good people that work for and with me.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Relationships, ethics, and collaboration
Are attitudes about ethics and relationship changing - or are they just more visible in the Net-enabled world? Take this quiz and see how you score. In my world, relationships must be based on the presumption of ethical behavior. You may say I'm a dreamer... but there is a business consequence to ethics or the lack thereof.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Consequential strangers: An underpinning of social media?
While I don't like the title of the book (Consequential Strangers: The Power of People Who Don't Seem to Matter - But Really Do), I was compelled by the argument. "The term 'consequential strangers' captures a fascinating paradox about casual relationships: They are as vital to our well-being, growth, and day-to-day existence as family and close friends." Author Melinda Blau, interviewed by NPR's Neal Conan, explained that we may be likelier to find validation in our relationships with relative strangers than within "close" relationships. People are even likelier to accept advice on serious topics like relationships and health issues from "strangers."
This makes perfect sense to me. This is a significant part of what fuels social media. Many consider social media to be an exercise in narcissism, and it certainly can be. For me, it has often provided a way of expressing myself when calling a friend and making the same statement seems like an intrusion. Perhaps the tree wants to be heard when it falls in the forest.
This makes perfect sense to me. This is a significant part of what fuels social media. Many consider social media to be an exercise in narcissism, and it certainly can be. For me, it has often provided a way of expressing myself when calling a friend and making the same statement seems like an intrusion. Perhaps the tree wants to be heard when it falls in the forest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
