Skip to main content

Why colleagues expose each other for bad behavior -- and why they don't

I just finished reading Columbia Business School professor Ernesto Reuben's article about whistleblowing in the workplace (Columbia Ideas at Work, Summer 2013).

As I have led many small teams right from my early career days in the late 80s, I have seen quite a few whistleblowing incidents myself. My office door was either non-existent (early career) or open. So anyone including trainees could walk in any time to discuss anything. But, under what circumstances did they expose, and not expose, a colleague's questionable behavior?

They exposed if ...


  • The issue negatively impacted them or a friend
  • They wanted to take vengeance on that person
  • They wanted to get rid of that person (as part of a larger plot)

They did not expose if ...


  • The issue did not impact them personally
  • They were planning to leave the team or the company
  • They were scared of that person
  • They wanted to teach the affected person/team a lesson (as in "I told you he/she was a bad person, but you didn't listen.")

An environment that permits bad behavior costs a lot to the company and possibly to affected individuals as well. Professor Reuben’s research underscores that "businesses must consider the barriers whistleblowers may face and be prepared to help manage them."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Explorer mentality Vs conqueror mentality

A fixation on competitors and on beating them is evidence of what Amazon's Jeff Bezos calls a conqueror mentality. In contrast, people waking up in the morning thinking how to innovate for the customer -- and having intense fun innovating -- is evidence of an explorer mentality.

The explorer mentality resulted in Amazon allowing negative reviews of its products. Reacting to this, a book publisher objected, saying "You make money when you sell things." But Bezos thought, "We don't make money when we sell things; we make money when we help customers make purchase decisions." So explorer mentality also demands a willingness to be misunderstood for long periods of time.

During his 16 years as CEO, Bezos' Amazon has delivered shareholder returns of 12,266% (industry-adjusted), and the company's value has grown by $111 billion. More in HBR Jan-Feb 2013.

M&A perspective: IT staffing Vs IT consulting

This report is a simple analysis by HT Capital -- a boutique investment banking firm in New York. It basically makes the point that being a staffing company (Vs consulting company) does not provide adequate returns to most investors, especially from an M&A perspective.

Peter Rozsa, co-author of the report, is a Senior Managing Director at HT Capital. He was also my "classmate" at a Columbia Business School executive education program. I have Peter's permission to make the report available here.

Click to download PDF report.

Leading Change Vs. "Leading" Status Quo

Change and Status quo can be as far apart from each other as a butterfly is from a caterpillar ...

Or ... as an Amazon.com is from a K-Mart ... Or ... as a BMW is from a Hyundai ... Or ... as laying a runway is from paving a cow path ... Or ... as a solution is from a product ... Or ... as experience is from service ... Or ... as customer success is from customer satisfaction ... Or ... as a distinct brand-you is from a me-too employee ...

Change can be triggered by innovation. Change can happen in corporate culture. And so on. There is a leader "behind" every Change. If you consider the corporate world, people like Lou Gerstner, Michael Dell, and Jack Welch may come to mind. Actually, there are scores of other lesser-known and unknown leaders that make change happen in their organizations.

Here's my question: What are some differences between those who lead change and those who "lead" the Status quo? Oh yes, we know about the staggering percentage of Change i…