Discussion on:

Career-harming scandals: Why do smart people do such dumb things?

that these folks enjoy come about because they possess certain non-conformist behaviors.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/11/19/learning-from-psychopaths-qa-with-psychologist-kevin-dutton/

It would explain a lot...

... required a personal coach so that he could behave appropriately in the office. Apparently, his skill was so great that it was worth investing thousands for this purpose. Must be some awesome skill level that he had!

When we define what is right and wrong from moment to moment and based on a democratic view of what is right for society, it's going to shift. Any individual can come up with their own view of what is morally correct and in these cases these folks believe this is OK behaviour (I do not hold that view by the way).

The only way to cure this is to have a fixed view of what is right and wrong - but then how do we do this without an external view to define that right and wrong (AKA religion and God).

Catch 22. Glad I have a moral base.

Moralality is a compass forever fixed and forever true. It's not a weathervane blowing with the winds.

~Unknown


Unfortunately for many in our society it is the other way around.

Who is "we"? We is an inclusive term. Would be better to say some or most.
I do agree that lack of firm personal convictions make it seem like our country is being managed by a bunch of immature people.

Choose one, choose all. Many people who can do great things are probably thinking so far into left field that they just have no way of relating to reality. This is where Harvard, Yale or any other institution should have course(s) on some form of morality, etc.

A previous boss (area manager) would give his 2 secretaries jobs to do but never say please and thanks. One of my counter parts mentioned to him that he was being rude. His ONLY comment was that "at my level I don't have to say that to those under me". That was countered with "because you are at the level that you don't have to is even more reason to do so". The manager never got it.

As a result the girls did everyone elses expenses first and his last. As a result everyone received their reimbursement before he did.

Be it $240K or $20K at a strip club, most guys would not survive their wife's rath. And before any other guys stand up, pound their chests and point fingers at me (or any other guys with a bit of a moral compass) stop, take a deep breath, count to 10 and think for a moment.

nt

Unfortunately understanding ethics does not equate with acting ethically.

is it any wonder the US business community is the way it is!

I think that this is completely different subject and it refers more to the economy at large than to relationships in a single company.

how they are presented in the media about the things they do and get away with.

America is the only society I've seen that tut-tuts and castrates it's leaders for certain behaviours, and then goes and exercises those same behaviours themselves, or showcases them on main-stream media, etc...

Everyone has their own standards to live by. This type of behaviour was RAMPANT through the 50s to the 90s, mostly in sales with the 'big' companies like pharmaceuticals, energy, banking, etc... Of course, it's mostly seen as a 'man' thing, and is a bit on the decline with the rise of women (and more sense? ) in the executive ranks.

Have you seen how much things COST these days? Our little branch office would have an end-of-year party for it's 12-13 employees, and the costs would EASILY rise above the $30k mark! Stop being so judgmental until you actually have the facts in hand...

That's $2,500 per person. If that involves air fare and a few nights accomodation then I can see that. If not then that's a lot of drinking or a lot of tips to the peelers or both.

Still $20K or $200K at a strip club for a limited number of arrogant twits is not an excuse on company expenses.

It must take a pious ass to know one if the best you can do is "Americans are a hypocritical bunch of cheating bastiches."

You should take your own advice wrt being judgmental.

Why do so many people think Americans are so different from the rest of the world? The biggest difference is that we get far more coverage by a _free_ press than most of the rest of the world.
The behavior of the rich and powerful hasn't changed one iota since we quit swinging by our tail. The difference, again , is a free press. It is everywhere now, 24/7, and the competition for headlines is cutthroat. Anybody with an axe to grind will provide negative news to the press and it will be transmitted to the world as quick as the producer cues the announcer.
All this exposure has created an "anything goes" attitude among those who would ordinarily behave differently, but the rich and powerful have and have always had the attitude that what they can get away with is what's right.
International borders have nothing to do with it.

can we expect from the 'leaders' of an amoral economic/political system, based upon what one's own Holy Bible calls, the root of all evil, the love of money?
Success breeds arrogance, arrogance breeds contempt, contempt breeds foolishness.

It seems that some "smart" people are doing something that is harming people or company, but not beninficial to themselves

We all make our own definitions of morality and all that comes with it. It is from your personal point of view. CHAOS From the best to the worst, every kink, quirk and fetish. Buried in superstition and religion or the complete lack thereof. Each one of us fits into the scale, some near the bottom, some near the top, a big majority in the middle. Do we step on those below us or help them up? Do those above us try to keep us down?? It all goes into making and shaping opinions of others and ourselves.

"I just dont understand how people ..., can be so intelligent on one hand and so clueless on the other". What makes you think they ARE intelligent on the one hand? Stupid is as stupid does. So he's a CEO - that doesn't necessarily = intelligence.

"Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them"
"The good I would I do not, and the evil I wouldn't that I do"

Ehrm, I was expecting some answers, not just the headline stretched over three passages!

"And, in my opinion, arrogance can only be cured with a tremendous fall from grace."...wrong approach !, I think that the arrogance will be back with those guys in a double force

questions....answers; answers.....questions

well, because we, men, are very simple-minded creatures and we based every activity on three-dimensions paradigm: p-p-m, which power-*****-money (btw sequence in this case doesn't matter)

... economic efficiency and the associated necessary intelligence with a moral standard.
In Europe nobody gives a damn about what people do in privacy - unless it is illegal.

ok so let's say I slept with 15yo hot girl (with her permission) from neighbourhood and I'm 25. Is is moral or immoral? What do think?

following the logic of the article it is a matter of selfperception as being smart or not. When smart people have to have a "higher" moral standard than the average, then is "being smart" obviously a draw-back!
So the more stupid you are (for the purpose of this matter) the more you will get away with a fun and "enviable" living.
We should not forget that to question other people's moral it always needs a certain amount of envy!

Morality is about right and wrong. I don't believe that there is such a thing as "higher" or "lower" morality, there is only one's capacity to split hairs over what is "right" versus what is "wrong" as agreed upon and documented by the majority over time.

No matter what the legal age of consent is, you must first ask if the 15 year old has the capacity to make decisions about what is "right" versus what is "wrong".

Oddly enough most societies would say she does not have that capacity (voting, ability to enter into contract, et-al) but would say she can consent to sex. Thus my working hypothesis is that dirty old men make laws and it is not right to have sex with an individual that can't even vote.

when they are two totally unrelated matters.

...but i also see a razor edge smack-dab in the middle.
If you try to sit on that edge, you will fall only one way, toward good, or toward evil.

I just dreamed that up.

Damn, I'm wise!

I think if you sit on the edge of the razor, you will be split in two, thereby not being whole.

That is precisely the problem. We see these people getting away with it, but instead of rebuking their behavior we wish that we too could behave as a sociopath.
Case in point: Donald Trump acts like a d##k. Instead of banishing the man from polite society we give him his own TV show so we can all watch.
What a bunch of morons!

"we wish that we too could behave as a sociopath"

Crazy, man, really crazy.....

the funny thing about articles like this one is that people behaviors are blocked sometimes and in the case of CEOs may lead to their bad influence on companies they run. The reason is not in the way they behaved but in the way this behavior is blocked. I'm sorry (maybe I am a bit old-fashioned in this matter) but I don't see any connection between being a good CEO and f...ing a maid after working hours at home.

between f...ing the maid on one's personal time and the employee during business hours? Are they not the same behavior? You think that behavior is "right"?

Ask yourself some questions: Is this maid is your employee? What sort of effect it could have to your company if you sleep? (negative or positive). If positive (profitable) so where is the problem, if it is negative then there is certainly a problem. If this maid is your employee then there are always two sides to this problem. One: She might feel offended in a way that you slept with her and you didn't give her a rise or, two, if she considered this as a pleasure then there is a chance that you will stay with her on a very friendly ground and even use her for things like watching for some other employees who might steal in the warehouse and so on. There is no proof that having intimate relationships with employees has a destructive or constructive effect to a company. Sometimes it might raise the ambition or determination in achieving goals such as in production, sales etc. It depends on each of the side's attitude.

would never look to any powerful or financially successful person for a moral compass. Screwing the wrong person and deciding if a merger will be good for the pocketbook are two unrelated matters.

Correct. Many of us don't care too much what persons do as long as it is legal. Moral is an intellectual, indestructible ribbon: You stretch it as far as you believe you need it. Any observer does the same; judgement is injust by default because too often we do not care about the needs and beliefs of others.
On the other hand: You can't do EVERYTHING here, too. Surely not. If corruption is involved, everything gets sticky and tricky. If, as mentioned above, you make it too apparent that you have something others don't but want, normally it is going to get difficult for you. Envy and a rotten kind of self esteem will keep a balance.
So at least _most of the time_ people try to keep distance to other ones' private lifes...

Greetz from Germany

CEOs have a lot of arbitrary power which they should use for the benefit of their shareholders. Unfortunately, some CEOs use their arbitrary power to benefit themselves. Morality is important. If you are screwing your maid, you are probably screwing your shareholders. Shareholders do not want to wait until the CEO gets caught screwing them.

I don't think you got the point in this particular case. I meant where is the connection between f...ing a maid and writing out checks for your employees (example) ? As far as morality is concerned it might pose a sort of a threat to the morality itself (well, you sleeping with a maid and you have a wife but you're married) but still where is the connection between this activity and managing a company. Is it possible that this kind of immoral behaviour may influence everyday operational activities in the company. I don't think so.

Everywhere and anywhere and to anyone. Just hope it does not come your way....

When it comes to women men do not think from their brains........

People do the math if he has a group of people , he is in a strip bar. the bill could be 20k. I do not know when you last visited one but they are usually 10 dollars for a beer, mixed more expensive. private lap dances 30 bucks for a song. plus additional tips. That added to the fact that they were most likely there 5 or 6 hours. I noticed no one even mentioned 1. why is his company allowing this. I know if i took a company card and did this i would most likely be fired. Most companies would ok a real restraunt if you wanted to . 2. who has a 200k limit on their credit card. don't tell me it is an amex no limt etc. I know if i ran up a huge sum in an evening my credit card company would halt it due to suspicous actviity .

but this year especially it seems to be a fresh scandal every month. If career priests can't even keep their wieners in their pants, what hope have dodgy CEO's got; and it's not just sex: The impropriety that "God's chosen ones" seem able to show with regard to other people's money regularly leaves us open mouthed too.

Depsite their intelligence or success we are just human beings and human beings make mistakes.

The thing is that the comments here show in most cases that either people who wrote them would like to become priests or COEs who splash out money and spend their time in bars,pubs and whorehouses. I don't see any view that tell me it is good to balance some ideas and be normal simply. Few people try to be normal which means that it is nothing wrong with sleeping with as many women as you wish, nothing wrong with cheating on a woman who cheated on you or even sleep with a maid because your wife doesn't suit your needs any more and she doesn't want to give you a divorce. This perfection in either of the mentioned ways is bad and the effect will be negative to a company you're running. You can't be a priest and you can't be a pimp, you can't show dictatorship behavior towards employees and you can't treat them too soft because in the end they would screw around and get lazy. You can't cause frauds at your company as a CEO but you must be smart enough at the same time to use the law in a legal way that makes some additional profit for your company. This is view (and this article, I think) is based on morality and there is no maximum morality (something like 100% morality) and minimum morality. We are always somewhere between these two points and it is the best when CEOs behaviour is in the middle, and that makes a good CEO.

The only thing that has changed in hundreds of years is we now have too many over zealous media judges who use 'scandal' to sell their merchandise. Of course it gets extra nasty if the 'accused' is on the opposite side of the political arena. If a wife/husband was damaged in a civil way, there are lawyers and judges to handle such situations. If an actual law was broken, we have police and prosecutors. What we need is the media to report the news, not turn 'yet another' example of imperfect human beings into a big sensation because of star appeal. If we had judged our Civil War or WWI or WW2 or cold war generals by the so-called standards of today's media, we probably would have lost some or all of them.

When you referring to top-level managment, they lose their way when those leaders get catered to so often and then arrogance creeps in in addition to becoming associated with individuals that don't have high moral standards which will lower that person's standards after a period of time. But not withstanding CEO, CIO etc positions, what about middle managers and lower positions. I think the big culprit is the stress level on individuals over time that lowers their abilities to think clearly and to prevail against temptations that would compromise their integrity.

C-3PO wrote, "The only way to cure this is to have a fixed view of what is right and wrong - but then how do we do this without an external view to define that right and wrong (AKA religion and God)." I disagree -- not because I think God should be out of the picture, but because of the concept of "natural law" that is applicable to all, regardless of their religion or culture. This concept goes back to the Greek philosophers and, perhaps, before. Reality itself -- the nature of the physical universe -- establishes a framework for human conduct, and enforces this framework by enacting the consequences of disregarding it. You don't have to believe in God, for example, to recognize that it's wrong for someone to steal from you. Basic virtues such as honesty, fidelity and generosity are built into the structure of human life. So the moral infractions mentioned in the article are infractions not because they violate some religious standard, but because they violate the "natural law" inherent in the way people are made.

Maturity is achieved when a person postpones immediate pleasures for long term values.

~Joshua L. Liebman

Unfortunately much of our society follows the hedonistic philosophy that only their own pleasure matters.

...that they've reached a level of power and influence where they no longer have to play by the same rules the regular rabble does.

They believe that they're untouchable. It's the lure of power and money that permeates our society: If you're rich enough you can do ANYTHING you want. To a certain point this is true because the rich can buy off the government.

The only way to neuter this mindset is to take the influence of money out of the democratic process. Being that our representatives are just as greedy as the the people paying them off, that's unlikely to happen without a serious house-cleaning and a few constitutional amendments. I'm afraid that the Sheeple are too infatuated with said money and power to want it to change until things get really, really bad.

Maybe their career isn't the most important thing in their life (or at least it didn't seem like it at the time).

Really. Have none of you read "Moral Mazes" by Robert Jackall -- that what is right and ethical is what those above you expect of you (leave your ethics at home / church and have at every damned thing you can imagine). Have none of you read "The Management Trap" by Dr. Chis Argyris -- don't you know that lying absolutely IS Executive Ability. Have you not read "Snakes in Suits: When Psycopaths Go to Work". Have you not watched the video "The Corporation" where Dr. Robert Hare is caught on camera saying that Corporations as psychopaths.

C'mon, we know what's at stake: Greed and fulfillment of lust. It's just business -- get over it. All managers these days are expected to conduct themselves in a way which is devoid of any sort of morality for the sake of the business. Hey, look at former President Clinton: Can't argue with success in the Rose Garden. Corporations, Government, Church Corporations, Academia need more leaders like that. It's just the way of the world.

On the other hand, there is one ethic amidst the "End Justifies the Means" to which even top management must adhere: Don't get caught. That is why there are endless meaningless diversity classes by HR: To avoid lawsuits -- the outflow of money is a back breaker.

But other than that, anything goes: It's sort of the "Psychopath by Day" scenario where a CEO can lie, cheat, steal, murder, pollute and do all sorts of nefarious things and then go home and be a wonderful husband, father, community leader and recycle.

Those of us who are technologists, though, should be of a higher standard. We're not smarmy sleazes standing around gossiping at the water cooler. We're in this Universe on a mission to learn the secrets of said Universe to create witty inventions, ever expanding our tools for the good of humanity.

It is our job to work around these rotten evil wicked management forces of nature to bring goods and services to the masses in spite of the chaos rendered by budget busting prodigal empty headed extremely attractive twits running things.

And yes, the two managers controlling everything in IT are still married to each other, violating the law against conflict of interest, wasting millions of dollars each year on each other for egos' sake with full support of elected officials and HR because top management perceives them to be vital to the operations of the County which could not possibly do without them for the NEXT 20 years.

It's the technologist underlings that do the work and will continue to do so until they too are RIFfed due to budget constraints in order to retain the 12 new managers the IT Director hired this year.

Any questions?

NT

The interesting thing about moral outrage is that it takes two groups to have it. People seem to enjoy being outraged.

The outrage the author feels at the fellow who spent money at a stripper bar is an interesting example.

But!

But there are countries that feel identical outrage at teaching a woman to read, or a woman appearing in public without her face covered. Or showing someone the bottom of your feet. The point is, that the outrage is just something that we do.

The amount of outrage you let yourself feel is the amount of outrage you are going to feel. It's just part of the human condition. I defy the author to tell us she didn't enjoy writing this article. In my own personal experience, I've had relatives who collected scandals like a hobby. "Oh, that trampy neighbor was out getting the mail in her nightgown the other day - Isn't that awful?" They knew every affair, every drunk passing out at the bar, every single woman who became pregnant, and anything else that was risque' or otherwise scandalous. And they smiled as they expressed their outrage.

Scandals? Moral lapses? We wouldn't have it any other way.

Sex scandals the mainstream media are trumpeting about are NEVER about sex. They are ALWAYS about something else.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn never touch that hotel maid, and even if he did, his is above the law anyway. It was some sort of power politics.

Petraeus affair is not about sex either. As far as I was able to piece together from alternative media, it has something to do with the attack on US consulate in Libya. Looks like somebody is trying to silence him, or something.

Why would an expert in people like Toni not know the answer to this question? Because psychology refuses to use all the data developed by non-psychologists on the mind and how people work. Start with Dianetics and go from there. There are about 15 other books to read and hundreds of hours of lectures that can be listened to.

And yes, these things can be treated, and we're working on that.

Years of working the restaurant business left me with this simple adage.

Don't stick your (insert favorite euphemism here) where you bake your bread.

What disturbs me most about the Petraeus scandal is that the chief of the nation's Central Intelligence Agency didn't even have the minimal amount of basic "intelligence" to understand or use common encryption techniques. There's no excuse for that. Spies should know how to encrypt their communications, and the boss of the spies should be smarter than your average code monkey who routinely encrypts all his/her email, regardless of its nature (mundane server log reports or confidential security studies). Clearly, someone that stupid was not qualified to run the CIA, much less command the armed forces of the United States.

NT

It is interesting to note that conferred power, increased responsibility so-often creates extreme Arrogance, and subversive tendencies-depending on the individual concerned. I recall a friend who rose to a position of great financial power for a religious organization, he was found out embezzling money and abusing his position of trust-possibly a reaction to lost faith... In any case this 250 grand tab, what a waste of resources that is-it would purchase a decent home for a homeless person, or train someone to make a living-instead just pissed against the porcelain and financed some cheap thrills (not so cheap) what a failure of imagination-at least he could have done something original with the loot!

Toni,

Good and timely question. However, I am rather puzzled that you are bringing this up. Of course, whenever an important personality collapses, it seems justified to wonder why. And some--like you, would go farther and ask why do such "smart" or "intelligent people make such gross mistakes?

I think that we ought to be careful. Neither intelligence nor smartness are synonymous of wisdom. A 20th Century philosopher (I hope I am correct) tells us that wisdom is "prudence" AKA caution in "business." Business, taken contextually, could mean life's matters, or life situations.

Additionally, from a Scriptures point of view, humans, though very rational, are by nature prone to miserable "failure". By failure--in t his context, I mean mistakes, or missteps.
If you have the Bible, please read Romans 7:14. pay close attention to 15-24.

I remember, as a high school student, Late Pope John Paul II was visiting France. During a meeting, one journalist asked him how could he explain the fact that man, supposed to be so rational, always behaves irrationally. Pope John Paul II used this powerful section of the Scriptures to support his answer.

The Bottom line is this: Neither the "intelligent" person who makes such "stupid" mistakes, nor I, or you, truly "understand" our "own actions." Interestingly, we only see light after we have screwed up miserably.

Lastly, if sin ever hurt while we engaged in it, I could posit that none would be a sinner, at lest not a repeat. And the world would be full of saints.

Just my humble opinion and I could be bloody wrong.

Jean-Pierre

Funny thing about these kinds of scandals, I wonder how much impact the affairs had on the family vs. how much impact the media coverage had on the family. Take Hillary Clinton, I would guess that if faithfulness was her #1 priority, she would have dumped Billy years ago. Also, they seem to still have a good relationship considering.

It makes you then wonder, which is worse for her, an affair she suspects or having her face rubbed in it by the media. But of course I guess that was Bills real sin, exposing their family to criticism by the media. And you cant hold the media responsible, after all, they are just responding to basic human urges.

Whatever airs we may give ourselves, we are a social animal that organises its bands by suppressing testosterone production in subordinates and stimulating it in dominant males. That feeling of being superhuman is the root of most of our banking scandals, corporate hubris and, almost as a by-product, sexual indiscretions.

No amount of corporate governance is going to make this system of winners and losers buck human nature and suddenly become saintly. Perhaps what we need is a return to the medieval system of court jesters licenced to stop the top guy from getting big headed and thinking with his dick.

It is true and more than a phrase: "Oh, how the mighty have fallen."

The profiteers don't care how they get it because money is the most important thing.

We settle for our wives and girlfriends and when a more attractive personality presents itself and if both parties take the next step, we try to look the other way. The problem is that when both men and women work in close proximity, there is bound to be issues.

Problems occur when either parties are looking for a way to get ahead or are disappointed with turn of events.

It is probably more appropriate if corporations have a simple policy - if you are having an affair, the senior of the two must quit or get fired if not disclosed immediately (within 5 days), else, we should all look the other way.

In a world where fewer and fewer have integrity, there are those lacking integrity who encounter a lack of accountability.

Many companies and this country are being run by people others see as, intelligent, clever, witty and knowledgeable. All the while many of them show they are apathetic to other's concerns, they lack common sense and lack firm moral convictions or a sense of appropriateness.

That, in my humble opinion, is not "smart".

Responding to my post about "Natural Law, " Zenith545 wrote, "What about cultures where polygamy is normal for them?? Did they not get the 'built-in'??"

Cultural customs are not the same as natural law. Obviously, whole cultures can violate natural law in some ways, but maybe not in every way. In a culture that tolerates polygamy, for example, stealing someone's wife might still be considered a "built-in" wrong. It was a polygamous culture that transmitted to us the Ten Commandments, which forbid coveting another man's wife. And before we judge such cultures, ask what are the status or prospects for an unattached woman in a society where her opportunities to support herself by employment are nonexistent, and where the number of available husbands has been greatly reduced by warfare. In such a society, being one of several wives of the same man might be the woman's only hope of a secure livelihood (other than becoming a prostitute, perhaps).