Follow me, if you will. Pretend that you are the CEO of a major, high visibility company. One of your top employees starts to get into trouble with the law. First, he gets caught at an airport with a water bottle that has been tweaked so that it hides things in a secret compartment. In fact, in this case, there was trace evidence that there was an illegal drug in that compartment. Charges were dropped, but still, the company was embarrassed.
Next, the same employee is accused of financing a huge dog fighting ring where dogs are tortured for financial gain and personal entertainment. In fact, this is reported to be one of the largest dog fighting gambling rings in the country!
Okay, it's time to call this employee in and here his side of the story. You call him in and he says everything you want to hear. "I have nothing to do with any of this!" Great, as long as he is telling the truth, all will wash out in the end and we can go about our business as usual.
Oopps!!! A trial happens and your employee is found guilty and sentenced to two years is prison!! Ouch, that does not look good for our company! What an embarrassment!
Two years go by and your former employee is released and has paid his debt to society. He would like to come back and have his old job. True, there are other people in your company that have done terrible crimes as well, and they are playing, so what about this guy? People seem to think that you owe it to him to let him play? Do you? Is working in your company a right, or a privilage? Don't you have the right to say who represents your company?
So, maybe you take him back, maybe you don't. Maybe you tack on a suspension of your own to show that you didn't appreciate how he made your company look.
My question isn't should this employee be allowed back, but why is it that the NFL apparently owes employment to Michael Vick when any other company in the world (outside of sports) would be free to say that they are not interested in hiring him?
Just so you know that I'm not going spineless on this one. I think the NFL should take Vick back. However, I would suspend him for another year so that he can prove that he has rehabilitated. People say that he has been an awesome person the last two years. Sure he has! He has been locked up! Most of his decisions are made for him behind bars. Now that he is out on his own, let's see what choices he makes for his life. Then and only then would I give him his "second" chance.
How about you? What would you do if you were Roger Goodell?
2 comments:
Hey Bolt - I am the CEO of my own company and am faced with tough decisions every day it seems. One of the decisions I have had to make in the past is purely a customer relations issue. One of my staff got himself into a personal jam that made and stayed in the newspapers for a while. I terminated the fellow because he was not able to fulfill his job requirements. When things had settled down, he approached me about employment again. I took the issue to my management staff and the general consensus was that bringing him back could become a public relations nightmare. These are the people who have made me somewhat successful so I had to trust their judgement and not hire him back; even though he had pretty much been exonorated of all charges against him.
On the other hand, I have a number of convicted felons working in my companies. Most of them do a fine job and I find it rewarding to be able to provide the opportunity for them to get back on their feet. However, none of these people cause embarrassment to the company. Their lives are not spread over the pages of the St. Pete Times.
My opinion on Vick is this. He did his time and he is available to work. If Goodell determines that the embarrassment of having Vick play in the NFL could be overcome, let him work. If he determines that it would be harmful to the league's image, don't let him work.
One of the arguments that I have heard in Vick's favor was that "Precedent had been established and he should be allowed to work based on that". In business, I have made a lot of mistakes. If I was forced to keep making the same mistakes because precedence was set when I erred the first time, I wouldn't be CEO of anything today.
Don't misunderstand this CEO thing. I own a number of small businesses. When I retired, I needed a title so I could stay active when I chose to.
Great comment bosox! I agree that whatever Goodell deams proper, I'll accept and go on with my life. I'm glad to hear that you don't let precedence rule your future decisions. Nothing bothers me more than hearing, "that's how we have always done it." Well, it could be that we've always done it wrong!
Thanks for your input. By the way, the movie post is up if you are interested!
Post a Comment