Does Winning really take care of Everything? Perhaps a better question to ask is this: “Do the consequences of ethical lapses dissipate if you find yourself on a winning streak?”
Ethics in the workplace and in our lives is a serious matter, something as a business ethics speaker I deal with daily. The current controversy over the new Tiger Woods ad by Nike is just one example of the connection between ethics, winning and success.
Haven’t heard about the ad? In an article for CNN (March 27, 2013) by Michael Martinez entitled: “Can winning really take care of everything in Tiger Woods’ troubled life?” The sports marketing, ethical experts and consumers of sporting goods are lined up on both sides of the issue with both angry and forgiving viewpoints.
Nike, it seems, is basically conveying the message that winning takes care of everything.
On its surface, Nike appears to have put its finger on the pulse of America’s out of control ethical compass. Oh sure, Nike has its naysayers, folks who swear up and down that they won’t so much as buy a Nike “swoosh” golf tee, but Tiger, currently number one in the rankings, with a new girlfriend, new commercials and flashing his happy renewed victory smile, seems again to be on an unstoppable roll.
Or is he?
Winning seemed to have rehabilitated Ray Lewis and Michael Vick, and I’m pretty certain that if Lance Armstrong goes in for another sport (he is after all, a naturally gifted athlete), for example, tennis; and he was magically able to climb the ladder to a top 10 ranking, would that begin to shine his winning image? Perhaps so.
Our culture loves a winner and it loves a good come back story. And guys and girls (we can’t leave Martha Stewart or Paula Deen out of the celebrity conversation), who seem to triumph after falling, are forgiven any mistakes, improprieties, fraud or even capital crimes they may have been accused of committing. Shucks…I am one of those folks who has climbed back from a pretty steep fall. I believe in Second Chances!
Let us leave the world of celebrity for a bit, and take a look at business people.
Imagine the CEO of a food trade organization who knowingly looks the other way when he is privy to conversations where member companies talk about intentionally adulterating their products. Let’s also imagine that the CEO is asked by CNN to make a statement about the state of his industry where he praises the industry for all of its ethical practices. Unfortunately, let us also imagine the adulterant is a chemical that causes violent reactions in children with a rare syndrome and a child dies.
How about the Manager of Manufacturing for a company who, in collusion with her retiring supervisor, decides to favor a certain vendor who kicks back to them in perpetuity for a very expensive replacement part that does not “properly” work. The parts go into machines and have a 20 percent chance of failing. The “machines” are motors that serve as emergency landing gear activators for commercial jet liners.
The CEO is found out and vilified; the Manager of Manufacturing goes to jail for two years after a backup circuit for landing gear fails to deploy.
Somehow the CEO was able to find work, once again, with a food trade magazine and he seems to have done a good job and the Manager, after prison, finds steady work in an auto parts store.
Both former executives now seek jobs with your company and you are the hiring manager. They come to you with glowing recommendations (in fact, amazing recommendations) from their lower level jobs and they plead for a second chance. They tell you they have paid their societal debts and that their actions, while terrible, were not as bad as they seemed.
After all, the CEO will tell you he wasn’t the one adulterating product and the Manager of Manufacturing claims the faulty part did not technically fail, but was simply outdated, and besides, she admits she didn’t make a dime on the deal.
Your decision is now not so easy, and it also tells us about celebrity and winning. We may not be willing to give the two corporate screw-up’s a second chance, but a sports celebrity or a celebrity chef on a huge win streak? Well, that’s a different story (isn’t it?)
We love celebrity in modern day America but maybe we love winning even more. I believe many of us identify with big celebrity or sports winners because if they win, we win.
In an age where people “pin,” “post,” “like” and “tweet,” from a long distance and where many view their winners as personal proxies on reality television, or ESPN, or even financial news shows, we grow increasingly distant from our core, ethical values.
Some of us (with two left feet) fantasize winning “Dancing with the Stars,” or winning “Survivor” or those of us with squeaky voiced winning “American Idol.” With all these thoughts of beating the competition at any cost, we often forget the hard work it takes to simply be satisfied in being a good person; a good, ethical person.
In the end, it seemed ironic that despite all of the winning of the Baltimore Ravens, Ray Lewis’ past surfaced during Super bowl week and Mr. Lewis has still to land a celebrity endorsement; and when Michael Vick again seemed on a winning roll, he was mocked and derided for trying to adopt a puppy; Paula Deen, the onetime queen of butter and sugar, still angers diabetics due to the cover up of her own diabetic disease and Tiger? Hardly a day goes by when they don’t report on the happiness of his ex-wife.
Because all the winning in the world doesn’t seem to answer the most basic of questions:
“Is so and so a good person? Has he or she led an ethical life?”
The hiring manager should weigh that question in regard to the former CEO or Manager, even though they “won” at lower level jobs. We must apply those questions to our celebrities as well.
In the end, I’ll take good people over “winners,” because good people are winners. Unfortunately, the reverse doesn’t always hold. That’s a tough consequence to live with no matter who’s cheering.
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT?
Bill Clinton; any questions….?