Ah, to sit at the top of the corporate food chain. There you are, a middle-aged white male (with or without paunch), showing up occasionally to work in your chauffeured vehicle, taking a few minutes to check the emails that your underpaid assistant has already reviewed, then off to a three martini gourmet lunch followed by a full body in office massage and, noticing that it’s quitting time off you go to the palatial home in which you live thanks to the fact that you are overpaid for being the CEO of your company. That is the general picture that those who argue against “income inequality” put forward.
While the picture of a day in the life of the CEO as I just enumerated it is, of course, a gross exaggeration, since most of us are not and will probably never be CEO’s of any major corporation, we simply are not privy to what the CEO actually does. As a result it is not difficult for those who are “anti-corporate” to sell this image. This resonates particularly well with those who are at the low-end of the corporate ladder and already view themselves as victims of “the system.”
If truth be told, I suspect that a significant number of those who rail against the inequities of corporate America would, were they offered the opportunity, gladly accept the position of CEO of their company complete with a seven-figure salary, stock options and all the perks that accompany that position, quickly forgetting their comrades in arms on the assembly line. If that analysis is correct, then we can say that it is not the inequities of corporate America toward which people are hostile. It is merely the fact that they are not the beneficiaries of the positive benefits that those at the top receive. In other words, their motivation is predicated on one of the ugliest of the deadly sins – envy.
While I have never run a Fortune 500 company, I imagine that my experiences as CEO probably mirrors that of others who ran their own small businesses. I can assure you that the glamor and prestige which is attributed to being the leader of your business is more than offset by trying to keep the company afloat, making sure that the cash is in the bank to pay your employees (even if that meant skipping your own paycheck) and the sleepless nights – wondering if your plan and your vision will be enough to bring you through a slow patch – well, who would ever trade pacing the floor at three in the morning in favor of a restful night’s sleep?
If there’s one thing we’ve learned from viewing the actions of a number of NFL players off the field, it is that if your job requires you to be aggressive and violent, it is sheer folly to believe that removing a helmet and shoulder pads turns you into Mary Poppins. We are who we have become – both in our place of work and outside the office.
People tend to want to associate with people who are like them. By that I am not speaking of superficial characteristics such as race, gender, ethnic background or religious views. At the heart of this desire to associate with others like us is a general outlook on life and the way in which we conduct ourselves with others. That is as true for a CEO as it is for someone on the assembly line. There is a reason that the term “den of thieves” is part of our vocabulary. It speaks to the fact that those comprising the “den” all share a common value system – that theft is not only an acceptable way of conducting oneself – it is an underpinning of their core belief of how they view the world and their role in it.
People, of course, can change. But let’s think back to the era of light bulb jokes as one of those comes to mind.
“How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?”
“Only one. But the light bulb really has to want to change.”
The fact is that behavior whether it is constructive or destructive seldom changes because miraculously the owner of that behavior has a sudden epiphany. Normally, the longer we repeat doing the same thing seeing what we believe are positive consequences, the longer we are likely to continue in that same behavior. The thief who knocks over a convenience store and gets away with the crime, is likely to plan additional convenience store robberies. Or, he might expand his horizons by considering how to make an even bigger haul by robbing a bank.
As he continues in successful caper after caper there is no reason for him to change his modus vivendi. The only likelihood that he will abandon his career is if he is apprehended, tried and incarcerated. And even then, we know the rate of recidivism of convicts is extremely high.
There is a reason that two-thirds of Americans view Hillary Clinton as “dishonest and untrustworthy.” (I am in that camp). She has a track record which she has developed over decades for, at the best, being barely inside the furthest edges of what might be considered legal; and at worst, violating the law but escaping the consequences of those misdeeds by virtue of her being well-connected and privileged.
Now the primary argument advanced by Ms. Clinton and her cohorts to dispel all the controversies that have surrounded her and her husband for decades is that, “it is a great right-wing conspiracy to disparage and impugn them.” I would consider myself on the right side of things politically. Yet I’ve never in all these years received even one invitation to attend an anti-Hillary conspiracy meeting. Perhaps I should feel offended by this omission.
In evaluating a candidate for president, I try to employ the same standards that I used in my business life in which I referred executives to our client companies for potential hire. Does the candidate have the requisite experience to handle the position in an exceptional manner? That was the primary determining criterion that i used. But beyond that there was a subjective component to my decision either to refer a particular candidate to my client or to withhold that referral. Did I like the person?
As subjective as “liking” someone is, I tried to apply objective standards to that decision. Was the candidate late, on time or early for our scheduled interview? Did she come to the interview in a crumpled outfit or were her clothes fresh out of the cleaners? Did the candidate have a good handshake or was it limp and fishy? How was the candidate’s eye contact and general body language during our interview? Did the candidate respond to questions in a clear and succinct manner or did she or he talk around the answer? Did the candidate engage in any activities whether on or off the job that suggested a generous nature and a team spirit? And perhaps most importantly, after we concluded our interview, did the candidate take the time either to call or send me a note, thanking me for the opportunity to meet and expressing an interest in the position we had discussed?
In essence, I mentally compiled a FICO score of personality for each candidate. Perhaps it was not quite as scientific or mathematical as those which are put together to determine credit-worthiness. But it seemed to be pretty effective as more than ninety-five percent of the candidates we referred to our clients and who were hired had long careers with those companies.
Applying those same standards to Ms. Clinton, I would not in good conscience have referred her to a client should the position of CEO be vacant and she had come in to apply for the job. That decision has nothing to do with our divergent political views. Rather, it centers around the woman herself.
I lived in the same condo for twenty-seven years and served as president for eight of those and as a board member for eighteen. Many of the owners were in the building for similar amounts of time – but there was some turnover as people changed jobs and relocated or found other accommodations. In some cases, I only learned the names of the other owners when, after three or four years, they had sold their apartment and were moving. The reason for that was simple. They followed the few rules we had, were good neighbors and gave the board no reason to have to intervene in any disputes in which they and their fellow owners engaged.
But as luck would have it, there were two of the seventy-two units whose owners either would appear before the board’s monthly meetings with regularity to allege a complaint against either management or one of their neighbors or who were the subject of just such a complaint by one of their neighbors. I remember that when they showed up for a board meeting, the rest of the board’s membership joined me in a collective groan as we knew what was in store. And it seemed that no amount of negotiating, no amount of pacification, nothing we could do would deter these two people from having another problem in the months that would follow. Very early on in this process, I believe that we all correctly came to the conclusion that the source and cause of the alleged problems was not the neighbor but the complainants themselves.
It was my experience that the overwhelming majority of my neighbors were kind and courteous people. They acknowledged their neighbors with a cheery, “Good morning” when we’d run into each other in the lobby and perhaps take a moment for a little chat even if they were on their way to work. They always thanked the doorman for opening the outer door of the building for them. On the other hand, the two people who regularly showed up at our meetings to file their complaints were cold and dismissive. They would seldom say hello to other residents and treated the doorman and the janitorial staff as though they were indentured servants. On more than one occasion, I apologized to our staff for their rude behavior.
Now consider for a moment that somehow, one of these two people were not only elected to the board but, even worse became president. What was once a generally well-functioning entity is now being run by people who had demonstrated that they were always at the center of controversy – and because of their actions were the cause of that controversy. How long would it take for the building’s operations to deteriorate, first into mediocrity and then into chaos? I suspect not long at all.
Ms. Clinton brings with her candidacy a great deal of baggage that has caused many stirs over the decades. One might agree with her assertions these are all a function of that vast great right-wing conspiracy. Or one might argue, the reason for all the controversy surrounding her is that she, through her own actions or inactions, has focused scrutiny on herself. If the same person is on site every time an arsonous fire is set, it would be foolish to overlook that person’s proximity and not have thoughts of suspicion arise toward them. Accidents happen fairly infrequently – and coincidences even less often.
Despite her proclamations to the contrary, Ms. Clinton is one of the least transparent political figures in this country. I cede the award of first place to President Barack Obama, hands down, undisputed, no argument. But Ms. Clinton is running a close second. She has, through her cohorts in the establishment in the DNC managed to schedule very few debates and most of those were aired at a time when people were absorbed with watching major sporting events or preparing to celebrate the Holidays. She hasn’t had a press conference for six months, unusual for a candidate for president who logically would want the public to know and understand what her positions are on important issues.
If we remember the premise that people tend to associate with people like themselves, what kind of staff would Ms. Clinton hire should she be successful in her bid for the White House? Well, we do know what kind of staff and who it was that she hired in the only executive position she has ever held – as Secretary of State.
The Dems in Congress have downplayed Ms. Clinton’s role in what lead to the death of our ambassador in Benghazi and that of three other Americans. To be candid, we may never know if their deaths were preventable. We also may never know whether the State Department acted in a prompt manner to attempt a rescue effort. But we do know that the State Department and President Obama knew the night of the attack that their explanation for the attack, that it was due to “an internet video besmirching the Prophet Mohammed” was a false narrative, repeated over a week’s period of time.
Further, we know that Ms. Clinton clung to this narrative while she “consoled” the families of those who had fallen in Libya – though she now denies that despite the testimony of those family members who heard her speak those words.
We also know that despite the Benghazi Committee’s Democrat members who have and still call this a “witch hunt,” were it not for the committee’s investigations, we might never have known that Ms. Clinton maintained an unsanctioned personal server and communication system nor that she deleted thirty-three thousand “personal” emails. These, among other matters, are currently the focus of an FBI investigation – not the “security review” that Ms. Clinton speaks of when addressing this issue.
Besides the FBI investigation, a number of organizations including Judicial Watch have filed suit to determine whether Ms. Clinton (and her staff)have violated any Federal statutes. Under the Freedom of Information Act, one of her senior assistants, Cheryl Mills gave a deposition last week. Ms. Mills was accompanied to this hearing by no fewer than seven lawyers – three who represented her personally and an additional four from the Justice Department.
While I’m sure that it was Ms. Mills’ intent to be transparent and totally forthcoming in her deposition, apparently she refrained from answering a significant number of questions put to her because it might have “compromised national security.” How ironic. That Ms. Mills could so clearly identify issues of “national security” in the questions posed her, yet her boss, Ms. Clinton was so unable to determine that thousands of the emails she received could not be so identified truly amazes me. I am further startled at the sheer numbers of legal talent that were assembled to advise this woman. In twenty-six years in business I don’t think I had need to consult with that many attorneys in toto.
Throughout her career, both Ms. Clinton and her spouse have regularly relied on legalistic defenses for their actions. It is reasonable to expect that should she be elected president, that sort of approach will continue. Perhaps we will see her put the law firm of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe on retainer.
But to my thinking, legal redress in most cases could be avoided by simply doing the right thing in the first place. That, it seems to me, is one of the fundamental roles that good management brings to the table.
In Ms. Clinton’s case, I am afraid we would see little more than Ms.management. And all of us will end up footing the bill.