Harvey Weinstein, King David, You, and Me

King David Handing the Letter to Uriah, by Pieter Lastman

People who have power without oversight are likely to abuse it. Such has been the case throughout history. Not all people in power are abusive or unethical, yet power itself increases the probability for wrongdoing. 

Recent examples include Harvey Weinstein, whose reportedly habitual repugnant, criminal behavior against women is—appropriately—shocking.  

And every day, it seems that more reports of similar behavior surface.

One explanation for such behavior is that these people are somehow “bad” themselves. Namely, something is, and was perhaps always, immoral about them. This could be the case, and regardless of how we explain or understand what they did, our criminal justice system and we as a society should absolutely hold all such people who do such things fully accountable for their actions. 

At the same time, I suggest that seeing such behavior—be it sexual assault or other forms of criminal or unethical actions by people who hold power—only as the result of being a “bad” person is overly simplistic. It’s also self-serving and convenient, as it suggests that only “bad” people do bad things, therefore “I” as a “good” person can only do good things. 

In other words, in addition to considering “bad apples,” we must consider “bad barrels.” We must recognize that situational conditions can bring out the good and bad in all of us. Research by psychologists Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo, among others, provides compelling evidence of the inconvenient reality that we are all capable of good—and, perhaps more importantly—that we are all capable of evil. 

And regarding people lead or who aspire to lead organizations, there’s a critical lesson to take away. 

It’s one best illustrated by none other than the psalmist, King David, and discussed in a 1993 article in the Journal of Business Ethics titled, “The Bathsheba syndrome: The ethical failure of successful leaders.”

The article draws upon the story of King David and Bathsheba. If you’re not familiar, here’s a summary, according to the Bible (see 2 Samuel, Chapter 11): 

It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking upon the roof of the king's house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” So David sent messengers, and took her; and she came to him, and he lay with her … And the woman conceived; and she sent and told David, “I am with child.” 

The plain language of these verses can unintentionally gloss over a few facts that are important to highlight: 

• David is a king, holding vast power and authority

• He sees a woman bathing and fetches her to his bed

• It’s hard to find evidence of a consensual relationship here

• Even if it were consensual, he knows she’s married, so it’s clearly wrong in this context

And then he learns that she’s pregnant, which naturally increases the probability of David’s actions becoming public. So, the king’s response? Let’s murder her husband. As written: 

In the letter he wrote [to Joab, one of his military commanders], “Set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting, and then draw back from him, that he may be struck down, and die.” And as Joab was besieging the city, he assigned Uriah to the place where he knew there were valiant men. And the men of the city came out and fought with Joab; and some of the servants of David among the people fell. Uriah the Hittite was slain also. 

The “Bathsheba syndrome,” as described by the article’s authors, involves the nature of power and leadership. It’s about how successful leaders, due to the very nature of their success, will almost inevitably find themselves in positions that can, if they’re not careful, lead to unethical behavior. 

This is because successful leaders increasingly have:

• Privileged access to information, people, and objects

• A tendency to lose strategic focus and get complacent

• Control over resources with little or no oversight

• The ability to manipulate the outcomes of their actions

Such products of success, the authors argue, leads to an increased probability of wrongdoing. It’s not about whether you’re a good or bad person; it’s not about whether or not you know the rules. It’s about the very outcomes of success. 

And that should serve as a warning to everyone who aspires to achieve success, at least success when defined as a position of authority within an organization. 

It’s a reminder that human nature can lead us to abuse our authority, to abuse our power over others to get what we want. 

It’s a reminder that it’s not just about Harvey Weinstein or King David; it’s about you. It’s about me. Because the minute we start thinking, “I’m a good person, so I would never do that” is the minute that we begin to step down the dangerous path of hubris. 

It’s an uncomfortable idea, but it’s valuable for us to remember. In particular, the article suggests that’s important for all leaders to keep in mind that, among other points:

1. It could happen to you—King David had principles; he was smart. And yet we see what he did. When confronted with ethical dilemmas, it’s best to assume that you will always get caught if you choose the wrong path.

2. Stay humble and grounded by living a balanced life. Find meaning in activities outside of your own organization to help you avoid believing in your own “greatness.”

3. Understand that your privileged access to information or people isn’t for your own benefit; it’s not something you deserve. Your job is always to help your organization flourish.

4. Surround yourself with people who will challenge your opinions and decisions, people whose job expressly includes keeping you focused and out of trouble.

5. Use boards of directors or other oversight mechanisms to keep your power in check; if you’re on a board, you should be particularly vigilant in your monitoring activities.

So in the midst of the many recent high-profile cases of sexual harassment and assault, it is perhaps timely to remind ourselves of the corrupting nature of power without oversight. When people depend upon us for resources, for approval, for jobs, for anything, the temptation to exploit such relationships exists.  

Such is the double-edged sword of success. It behooves all of us, therefore, to stay vigilant regarding our own behavior and the behavior of all others in power around us. 

---

About Ben Baran
Ben Baran, Ph.D., is probably one of the few people in the world who is equally comfortable in a university classroom, a corporate boardroom and in full body armor carrying a U.S. government-issued M4 assault rifle. He regularly consults leaders and organizations across a wide range of sectors and industries. Visit: www.benbaran.com.

Are You “Rewarding A While Hoping For B?”

Incentives matter. Rewards motivate people to behave in certain ways. Using incentives, therefore, is one great way to influence the form, direction and intensity of how people act. 

Goals also matter. They help us clarify where we’re headed and how to focus our efforts. Setting difficult, specific goals, therefore, is one of the best ways to motivate yourself and others (see the numerous studies on the topic, particularly those by Gary Latham and Edwin Locke). 

But goals and incentives can—and sometimes do—run amuck. 

And when that happens, it’s often in the form of “rewarding A while hoping for B,” a topic described thoroughly in the classic management article by Steven Kerr.  

That is, we often forget that it’s not just about what you’re rewarding formally; it’s also about what you’re rewarding informally. And it’s in the unintended informal rewards that we can run into trouble. 

Here’s a simple example: You assign a task to one of your direct reports. He quickly responds with a sub-par product with multiple errors. You’re frustrated, but you know that you can fix the errors about 10 times more quickly than he can. So you tell him that it’s not sufficient, but then you go ahead and fix the product yourself—leaving him with no more tasks to complete that day. 

What have you done? 

In addition to missing a training opportunity, you’ve informally rewarded your direct report for sub-par effort. By not having him go through the pain of fixing the problem, he now knows that he can get by with little effort. That leaves you at the office at 7 p.m., while he’s already home or at happy hour. 

Did you mean to reward poor performance? Of course not. But in a way, you did. 

Here’s another simple example: You set a team goal of 1,000 error-free shipments of one of your new products. If that occurs, everyone on the team will receive a $3,000 bonus. One of your people finds an error after one of the products ships, but it’s an error that the customer might not notice for quite a while. Have you rewarded that employee to speak up and report the problem, or have you rewarded silence?  

Here’s a bigger example: Wells Fargo. As you likely know, between about 2011 and 2016, the company set goals for its lower-level bank employees to sell additional products to its customers—a practice known as cross-selling. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. What company doesn’t want its customers to purchase and use more than one or two or three or more of its products or services? 

But what happened at Wells Fargo is that the incentives and goals were such that people—more than 5,000—found numerous “creative” ways to cross-sell. These methods included widespread opening of accounts for customers who didn’t request them and even using fake customers to pad one’s sales numbers. 

Here’s a Wall Street Journal recap of some of the highlights. 

Clearly, this was an error of management and leadership at a grand scale. It’s hard to claim that such a problem might be due to a few “bad apple” employees given that at least 5,000 were involved. 

Instead, it’s the barrel—the system. And in particular, it’s the incentive and goal-setting systems set in place by senior leaders—the “barrel makers.” They, along with the direct violators, are culpable. 

Incentives and goals are important aspects to guiding people’s effort at work. When properly aligned with organizational objectives, they can powerfully harness people’s ingenuity for the good of the team. 

But it’s equally important to remember that incentives and goals may have unintended consequences. So let’s be on guard for those ways—both big and small—in which we might be “rewarding A while hoping for B.”

Find this thought provoking? Leave a comment, like and share!

---

About Ben Baran
Ben Baran, Ph.D., is probably one of the few people in the world who is equally comfortable in a university classroom, a corporate boardroom and in full body armor carrying a U.S. government-issued M4 assault rifle. More at www.benbaran.com and www.agilityconsulting.com.