Cindy, you know by tattling on your friends, you're really just tattling on yourself. By tattling on your friends, you're just telling them that you're a tattletale. Now is that the tale you want to tell?
Mike Brady
Now Mike Brady may not be Peter Drucker, but he does provide an interesting point in management advice – nobody likes a tattletale. We may think of a tattling as a childhood obsession but it has some real implications in the world of business. After all, many of us know something unsavory about a competitor or fellow employee or have had an experience with someone that exposes behaviors/traits/responses that do not match the public persona that the individual/company has presented. We would love to announce it to the world, but we rarely do.
Why it tattling not tolerated by us? Is it the so-called “honor amongst thieves”? Is it our own perception that we are taking the highroad and not resorting to negative behavior? Or, is it because all of our lives we have had the words of Mike Brady reinforced – nobody likes a tattletale?
Take the case of Mr. Eric Mangini of the New York Jets. No need to go into the details as they are on display in every sports section today, but Mangini became a tattler this year when he turned into the league one of his peers – Bill Belicheck for videotaping signals of the Jets and other teams in the league. The initial outcry in the press and throughout the league was shame on Belicheck and the Patriots for cheating.
Yet, as time started to drift, there seems to be a bit of a directional shift. The comments in the press are not about what a brave and noble thing it was for Mangini to come forward, but consternation for his betrayal of: 1) the coaching fraternity (as Jimmy Johnson notes in USA Today, he did it and everybody else does it to a degree); 2) his mentor who brought him along from an intern to a head coach; and 3) the New England franchise and the Kraft family who were loyal to him and provided him the opportunity that led to his job.
Today, the press isn’t moralizing about how the Patriots cheating betrayed the spirit and integrity of the game. Instead there are segments of the media and the blogosphere that are talking about how untrustworthy Mangini is and how New England is going to use this as motivation to destroy the Jets. The anticipation of perhaps the greatest single game demolition in the history of football is being gleefully cheered by the masses. Mangini and the Jets have gone from protectors of the integrity of the game to the main course for the lions (err Patriots) at the Coliseum. Apparently, Mike Brady was right – tattling just tells your friends you are a tattletale.
Is there an ethical obligation to be a tattletale? One can argue that no significant harm was being done. Mangini could have easily adjusted his signals and could have informally made it known to his peers to look out for this when playing the Patriots. Tattling is an option, but not the only one. Did Mangini create a greater sin in his peers and the publics’ eyes because the nature of his actions made it very clear that in tattling he was only doing so to hurt a competitor and conceivably gain an advantage? If so, does this mean that tattling is only acceptable when there is nothing to gain in doing so? In essence, should we only tolerate tattling when it is for the public good?
It is commonly accepted that the messenger is usually the one who pays for delivering the news. One would assume that a man with the nickname “Mangenius” would have known this. Apparently, he decided otherwise or that the gain achieved from outing the Patriots as cheaters would outweigh the cost. In making his decision Mangini has learned that there are consequences to tattling.
Right or wrong, in tattling Mangini has opened himself up to public scrutiny. Whether he is cheating or not, his ethics and motivations are being questioned and criticized on a far more fundamental level. After all, people can understand the motivation of a cheater – the motivation of a tattler is not easily understood.
As business owners and managers we have to make difficult decisions everyday and this situation teaches some fundamental points of leadership. We live in a complex world and decisions need to be considered from every angle not just what is right and wrong. We need to take into account all the impacts of a decision especially when they involve ethics. Ethics seem to be a fuzzy thing and when calculating the impact of a decision on our business and our employees we need to recognize that what we perceive is right isn’t universal especially when the decision is going to be a public one. In the business world being “right” from an ethics standpoint has very little to do with the final outcome.
I don’t know what Mangini was thinking when he blew the whistle on Belicheck but it’s likely he didn’t consider the full impact the decision would have on his team or his own personal reputation. Whether anyone involved will admit it or not, one has to assume that it has had a negative impact on his team. Time spent answering questions about “camera-gate” take away preparation time and focus. Worse, perhaps he lost some of his locker room because not everyone agrees with his stance. After all, how willing are they going to be to give their all to someone who betrayed and publicly humiliated their mentor? If so, it has a direct impact on their ability to perform.
Whether or not tattling was the right decision is a call only Mangini can make. In hindsight maybe he makes the decision again or maybe he realizes that the gain wasn’t worth the price. At the very least, I hope he can sleep well at night. When it comes to ethical decisions that is all you can really hope for.
Why it tattling not tolerated by us? Is it the so-called “honor amongst thieves”? Is it our own perception that we are taking the highroad and not resorting to negative behavior? Or, is it because all of our lives we have had the words of Mike Brady reinforced – nobody likes a tattletale?
Take the case of Mr. Eric Mangini of the New York Jets. No need to go into the details as they are on display in every sports section today, but Mangini became a tattler this year when he turned into the league one of his peers – Bill Belicheck for videotaping signals of the Jets and other teams in the league. The initial outcry in the press and throughout the league was shame on Belicheck and the Patriots for cheating.
Yet, as time started to drift, there seems to be a bit of a directional shift. The comments in the press are not about what a brave and noble thing it was for Mangini to come forward, but consternation for his betrayal of: 1) the coaching fraternity (as Jimmy Johnson notes in USA Today, he did it and everybody else does it to a degree); 2) his mentor who brought him along from an intern to a head coach; and 3) the New England franchise and the Kraft family who were loyal to him and provided him the opportunity that led to his job.
Today, the press isn’t moralizing about how the Patriots cheating betrayed the spirit and integrity of the game. Instead there are segments of the media and the blogosphere that are talking about how untrustworthy Mangini is and how New England is going to use this as motivation to destroy the Jets. The anticipation of perhaps the greatest single game demolition in the history of football is being gleefully cheered by the masses. Mangini and the Jets have gone from protectors of the integrity of the game to the main course for the lions (err Patriots) at the Coliseum. Apparently, Mike Brady was right – tattling just tells your friends you are a tattletale.
Is there an ethical obligation to be a tattletale? One can argue that no significant harm was being done. Mangini could have easily adjusted his signals and could have informally made it known to his peers to look out for this when playing the Patriots. Tattling is an option, but not the only one. Did Mangini create a greater sin in his peers and the publics’ eyes because the nature of his actions made it very clear that in tattling he was only doing so to hurt a competitor and conceivably gain an advantage? If so, does this mean that tattling is only acceptable when there is nothing to gain in doing so? In essence, should we only tolerate tattling when it is for the public good?
It is commonly accepted that the messenger is usually the one who pays for delivering the news. One would assume that a man with the nickname “Mangenius” would have known this. Apparently, he decided otherwise or that the gain achieved from outing the Patriots as cheaters would outweigh the cost. In making his decision Mangini has learned that there are consequences to tattling.
Right or wrong, in tattling Mangini has opened himself up to public scrutiny. Whether he is cheating or not, his ethics and motivations are being questioned and criticized on a far more fundamental level. After all, people can understand the motivation of a cheater – the motivation of a tattler is not easily understood.
As business owners and managers we have to make difficult decisions everyday and this situation teaches some fundamental points of leadership. We live in a complex world and decisions need to be considered from every angle not just what is right and wrong. We need to take into account all the impacts of a decision especially when they involve ethics. Ethics seem to be a fuzzy thing and when calculating the impact of a decision on our business and our employees we need to recognize that what we perceive is right isn’t universal especially when the decision is going to be a public one. In the business world being “right” from an ethics standpoint has very little to do with the final outcome.
I don’t know what Mangini was thinking when he blew the whistle on Belicheck but it’s likely he didn’t consider the full impact the decision would have on his team or his own personal reputation. Whether anyone involved will admit it or not, one has to assume that it has had a negative impact on his team. Time spent answering questions about “camera-gate” take away preparation time and focus. Worse, perhaps he lost some of his locker room because not everyone agrees with his stance. After all, how willing are they going to be to give their all to someone who betrayed and publicly humiliated their mentor? If so, it has a direct impact on their ability to perform.
Whether or not tattling was the right decision is a call only Mangini can make. In hindsight maybe he makes the decision again or maybe he realizes that the gain wasn’t worth the price. At the very least, I hope he can sleep well at night. When it comes to ethical decisions that is all you can really hope for.
No comments:
Post a Comment