A CEO client of mine lamented a crisis. Union members were protesting vocally in front of one of the business’s retail stores, and a concomitant social media pressure campaign was simultaneously underway, garnering a degree of public sympathy online. An executive at the company had decided to lay off a non-performing sixty-year-old manager. The manager and the union accused the company of ageism, even though chronic non-performance had been the cause.
The CEO worried about potential damage to the company’s image and reputation, whether her overseas headquarter superiors would assign blame to her, and how that might affect her career. She worried about failures she discovered in the hiring and promotion of the manager, some of which occurred on her watch. As she continued to investigate, she wondered what else might come to light and whether similar failures related to other staff had also occurred. Lawyers and crisis management consultants advised her on what to do. She asked me for my advice.
“Be skeptical of the lawyers and the crisis management consultants,” I advised. “Their interests might not be aligned with yours, and they are often the only winners in these situations. Put your worries about your superiors and career aside. Continue to investigate internal processes and practices. You will need to fix these for the future, but they are irrelevant to what you must decide now.
“Ask yourself only one question: What is the right thing to do, ethically, morally, and in the best interests of the business? If you think the company was responsible for hiring the wrong person and improperly promoting her, consider that in your decision.”
She thought momentarily and concluded that the company bore some responsibility but was still considering the right thing to do. The manager had demanded to keep her job and wanted to work for another ten years.
So, I asked the CEO if she thought that was right and fair, ignoring company policies for a moment and using her own morals and ethics first.
“No,” she said. “Keeping a low-performing manager in place is not fair to the business. It is not fair to customers, who would suffer lower service. It is unfair to staff who work under her or colleagues who must work with her. It is unfair to deny opportunity to well-performing staff who deserve to be promoted, when non-performing managers stand in their way. It is not fair to the business, which might lose such top performers to competitor companies that offer better opportunities and bosses under whom to work. It is unfair to me when I am held accountable for the business’s results. What would the impact on customers, the business owners, and my work and career if I gave in to the manager’s demands? What would staff and colleagues think of their employer and me as their leader?”
So I asked her what she thought was the right thing to do. She explained that she had already offered a fair severance package, but that was not enough. Despite the urging of union officials, the manager refused to accept anything short of continued employment.
The CEO asked me again what she should do.
I told her she had done all she could. She has done what is fair and is right. Giving into the manager’s demands compromises her morals and ethics in other areas.
And what about the union protests, the company’s image, and the potential wrath of her overseas superiors?
The union will either continue the protests or not. The public will think what it will think, even if it is unfair. Her superiors will do what they will do, even if the CEO’s actions are right. The CEO has control over only her own actions and her explanation of them. People will either agree or they won’t.
As a leader, you decide as best you can and weather the consequences, come what may.
Is there really any other alternative—one you can live with?
English 
Japanese