There is a classic problem associated with being the person who sets a policy: you are expected to follow your own rules. It should be a given, but often isn’t. I cannot tell you how many times “C-Suite” have been caught in their own webs.
Mark Schlissel
Mark Schlissel is the University of Michigan president. Or, I should say, was the president. On January 15, 2022, Schlissel was fired and it was unanimous. The board learned about an inappropriate relationship the president had with a female employee around December 8, 2021. It was a whistleblower with a supposed axe to grind.
The board started to investigate by going into Schlissel’s emails. They found several exchanges dating from July 2021 to December 2021. While the exchanges between Schlissel and the employee were not “outrageous in detail,” they were suggestive and inappropriate. The female employee was subordinate and therefore every facet of the relationship was in violation of the policies Schlissel helped to create, and he was obviously expected to adhere to as the university president.
Schlissel was hired to the position in 2014, and he was making in excess of $900,000 per year when he was fired. Apparently, if a person is found guilty of violating such policies, the contract gets voided.
According to reports, the board had it in for Schlissel before the full details of the inappropriate relationship came to light. There was deep policy division within the board in regard to the president’s performance. It was so contentious within the university that he voluntarily said he would leave in 2023 (rather than 2024) however, when news of the relationship came to light, it pushed the board to come together and ask him to immediately leave.
It is a further warning about the discovery of inappropriate behavior. In situations where there might be a hint of a certain amount of indecisiveness, unethical behavior will always push the equation to the other side.
After the investigation the board issued a statement:
“(W)e learned that Dr. Schlissel, over a period of years, used his university email account to communicate with that subordinate in a manner inconsistent with the dignity and reputation of the University.”
The University of Michigan has a morals clause and he was in clear violation. Even if it was a consensual relationship, Schlissel was still in violation:
“a supervisor may not, implicitly or explicitly, initiate or attempt to initiate an Intimate Relationship with a Supervisee over whom they exercise supervisory authority.”
The policy does recognize that Schlissel further exacerbated the situation by failing to disclose the relationship to the board. For the policy understands that working in a system the size of Michigan (with a staff of about 12,000) that people meet and romances can blossom. However, even that would have worked against Schlissel; he is married with three children.
Now, There’s More
Violating one’s own policy as Schlissel did, usually leads to greater consequences stemming from the arrogance of the policy violations itself.
In a Detroit Free Press article by David Jesse (January 16, 2022) it has come to light in his belief that “no one was watching,” they are now investigating that “Schlissel misused university funds in support of relationship.” This also came to light as (apparently) another whistleblower came forward.
“It was unclear what funds the investigators might be examining. The sources requested anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.”
It is possible that not only did Schlissel carry on a secret relationship in violation of university policy, but that he allegedly wined and dined her on the university’s expense account.
Whether fraud exists at your local autobody shop when a mechanic pads the bill, or in the case of a university president (making nearly a million per year in salary) steals funds for his own enjoyment, when a lack of oversite occurs the potential for fraud is always there.
Schlissel had a need for power, we might suppose. He had all the money he needed, he had a staff and huge responsibilities and influence, but he needed more. Whatever it was specifically, he took it.
Finally, we might ask why – or how – he rationalized violating the policies he wrote. Perhaps it was as simple as he felt that no one would dare to challenge him. In addition to his credentials, he is also an M.D. and it could be he believed he was the brightest bulb in the room. But with all of the power and pontification, he was ultimately an ethically flawed man.
Ethics matter, and a lack of ethics bring down the most powerful. The life of Mark Schlissel is quite tragic in many ways. He has become a man isolated and disgraced when he was once at the top of the mountain.
LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS!
