Why aren’t we shocked by Cronulla’s chairman’s cocaine charge?
The case of Damian Keogh being charged for drug possession is the latest in a series of CEOs behaving badly.
It brings up the age-old question – what message does this send about what we expect of our leaders? When does the behaviour become so serious and so inconsistent with the organization’s values that it has no choice but to sack the person? When should a leader fall on their sword?
Does this stuff matter or are we just all getting used to it?
Every day, there’s seemingly another senior leader or CEO doing something that generates a “you’ve got to be kidding” sort of response.
And yet, it’s almost as though we are now expecting that our CEOs/board members and other senior leaders will (and can) behave badly.
What do we expect of our CEOs?
We expect that senior leaders to behave in a way that at best leads the way, and at the very least is consistent with what the organisation’s values profess to be.
We expect that we can look at a CEO and see an exemplification of what the organisation stands for.
The disconnect obviously comes when the organisation has a message (in this case that the organisation is tough on drugs) that the senior leaders think doesn’t apply to them.
Do as I say, not do as I do
And it happens over and over again. In every big scandal of recent years, that organisation had stated values and explicit policies that were completely at odds with the behaviour of the CEO or board member.
When is it so serious that there is no choice but to act?
There are times when it is clear that the organisation has to take action, for example, where there are criminal charges involved.
The powers that be seem to find it harder to make a decision when the behaviour is of a moral nature rather than a criminal nature. It is almost as though those sort of behaviours are discounted in their severity.
Maybe because they relate to activities outside of work. Maybe because “everyone does that”.
It’s almost as though the boards make the calculation that the value/experience/brand that the CEO brings is worth more than the poor behaviour. That they can tolerate the poor behaviour because of their performance in other areas.
Who is going to change it?
Where it’s the CEO who is behaving badly, it is up to the board to make some hard decisions around whether that behaviour is consistent with where the organisation wants to go and wants to be known for. There are some organisations who just get on and do this as a matter of course; others who do get there, but only after some public backlash.
There are also (fewer) examples where the CEO or other senior leader has voluntarily come forward and taken the expected action, without being pushed.
What does your organisation want to be known for?
At the end of the day, it is about what an organisation wants to be known for.
The CEO and board and other senior leaders are often the most visible illustration of that organisation.
Increasingly, it is becoming clear that you can’t say one thing about what your organisation stands for, and do something entirely different. As shareholders and consumers, we do all have power to let an organisation know when it’s gone too far. And in this day and age, the consumer backlash is the thing that might make the difference to those boards that find it “difficult” to make the decision.
The value that sits on almost every organisation’s wall – “integrity” – is starting to actually mean something.
Want more?
If you would like to discuss how I could help you build your leadership capability, get in touch.
And if you’re still hungry for more on being a great leader, you can find my leadership book here.
Until next week, happy leading.
