Blog

TO TRUST OR NOT TO TRUST 


 

    Dr. Robert Hurley is a professor of Management and director of the Consortium for Trustworthy Organizations at Fordham University. He consults with organizations on leadership development, top team development, coaching, managing transformational change, developing and implementing strategies to maximize customer value. He has published over 30 articles or book chapters. His work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, California Management Review, and Harvard Business Review. Click here to read full bio. 
  • Tue, July 30, 2013 5:00 PM | Robert Hurley (Administrator)

    Every once in a while when you open the newspaper and turn the pages, you see story after story that helps explain why there has been such a vast loss of trust in so many aspects of our society. For example, if you picked up the Thursday July 18th issue of the New York Times, on the front page you would read about the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s allegation that JP Morgan devised “manipulative scheme” that led some states to overpay for energy.  On the same page, you also read that the poisoning and death of 22 school children in India may have been in part due to corruption and mismanagement. When you got to page 4, you learned that Xu Zhiyong, a scholar and human rights activist, was detained in Beijing. When you got to page 10, the headline read “In China and U.S., Mutual Distrust Grows, Study Finds” and then on the next page “Politicians Are Slowed by Scandal, but Many Still Win the Race.” If you were hoping for an improvement in the Business section right away, you would be smacked with the SEC case against a former Goldman Sachs trader accused of deliberately misleading investors. Then on page 3, there was a story about China baring a GlaxoSmithKline executive from leaving during a bribery inquiry, and on page 4, a report about the conviction of a Chevron employee of corruption charges in Indonesia was featured.  If you were courageous enough to read to Op-Ed, you would hear from Nasser al-Awlaki who expressed his frustration that his lawsuits have been judged “outside the court’s jurisdiction” as he tries to force the U.S. government to explain why his grandson, who was a U.S. citizen, was killed by a drone strike.

     

    All of these stories cataloged different events but they all have one thing in common: they deal with trust. When agents deceive or manipulate, they are eroding trust. When agents are incompetent or corrupt, they are destroying trust. When governments use their power to silence legitimate debate or avoid accountability, they are eroding trust.  Trust is a judgment of confident reliance and we offer this precious commodity to those we judge as trustworthy. When we read about agents that are deceptive, corrupt, incompetent and those who try to gain unfair advantage, we file them away as signals of a lack of trustworthiness. If this happens too often, we become more cynical, untrusting and cautious. What is most frightening is that the research shows that when we lose trust, we also tend to disengage with the institutions we deem untrustworthy (e.g., Congress).

     

    Consumers of media seem to have a preference for stories of scandal. Unfortunately it seems that reading about politicians, banks, oil companies and other trustees that are doing the right thing is just too boring for us. But we need to begin to find and celebrate those agents that have worked hard to manifest the core elements of trustworthiness (benevolence, competence, integrity and transparency). We need to give these trustworthy agents our trust, our business, our votes and withhold the same from the untrustworthy. The Consortium for Trustworthy Organizations will try to locate these virtuous agents and tell their story so others can learn and so you know in whom to place your trust. In the meantime, stay engaged, and don’t stop reading.

  • Tue, May 21, 2013 12:01 PM | Deleted user

    Bookmark and Share 

     

    As the fallout continues from revelations about IRS targeting Tea Party groups, we learn more about trust. The initial diagnosis was that there were “partisan motives” which would be a violation of ethics (lack of fairness) and unconstrained self-interest (a lack of benevolent intentions or motives). As the story unfolds, evidence is appearing as it often does.  The root cause of the trust violations was incompetence – there was a “group of bad apples” who were not following proper procedures in part because they were poorly supervised and overwhelmed by the task confronting them.

     

    To be truly trustworthy an organization must have multiple elements of trustworthiness:

    • Benevolent intent – do good when it is possible
    • Competence - deliver on commitments 
    • Integrity – do what you say you will
    • Predictability – develop a track record of reliability
    • Open communication – listen and communicate openly

    These elements need to be deeply and pervasively embedded in the DNA of the firm to warrant stakeholders’ trust.  The IRS is only one of many institutions that need major work before they can be considered trustworthy. It’s time we stopped the blame and hyperbole and got to work in earnest to build trustworthy organizations!

  • Wed, April 10, 2013 4:49 PM | Deleted user

    Bookmark and Share 

     

    I have not written a blog in a few weeks as I have been busy finishing a book chapter on trust in banks. As part of that research, I read all 200 plus pages of the Salz Review that was published by Barclays in early April 2013. Salz was hired by Barclays to investigate and report on the firm’s trust violations and they had full independence in conducting this review. The investigation included over 600 interviews and was global in scope. What’s more, Barclays published the entire “warts and all” review. Contrast this with the Goldman Sachs review of business conduct. The Goldman review committee included no fully independent outsiders, and the report that was published only included recommendations for reform and nothing in the way of transparent disclosure of what really happened that violated stakeholder trust. Ironically, one of the recommendations of the Goldman review was to be more transparent. By making the Salz report public, Barclays has far exceeded Goldman in both calling for transparency and actually living it.

     

    Why is transparency so important to trust repair? After taking a beating from the media who pick through the report and highlights the most egregious violations, transparency does some really important things for Barclays longer term. First, it avoids the self-surgery biases that can lead to a failure to really understand the root causes of trust violations. It is not at all clear that Goldman has really gotten to the heart of what went wrong at that once great firm. Second, transparency signals to trustors that the firm really understands that it did something wrong and respects those whose trust was violated enough to allow them to see the guts of the repair process. Third, the act of disclosing great detail about violations, and deliberately making themselves vulnerable, is an act of trustworthiness itself. This suggests that they are genuine about repairing trust rather than merely treating the investigation as a PR ploy in the damage control process. Transparency and vulnerability are an act of penance paying that shows, beyond cheap talk, that the firm truly acknowledges and feels badly about the harm it has caused.

     

    Having studied a number of trust repair processes, I have seen time and time again that half-hearted, self-interested and opaque investigations merely white wash what happened and do little to set the stage for real reform and re-building of trust. The Salz report’s major finding was that Barclays had failed to embed elements of trustworthiness deeply into its organization. For example, each subsidiary had its own culture and the HR and compliance functions lacked adequate power and influence. The bank has made a good first step in trust repair with the Salz Report. Let’s hope they continue down the slow and steady path of building trustworthiness deeply into the mission, strategy, leadership, culture, incentives and core operational processes of the company. Wouldn’t it be great if we had a bank that was the paragon of trust? I know where I’d put my money!

     

     

  • Fri, March 01, 2013 4:16 PM | Deleted user
    Bookmark and Share

    As if the Libor scandal wasn’t bad enough, we open the paper to read about the betrayal of trust at Burger King, Tesco, IKEA, Nestle and Aldi regarding DNA traces of horsemeat in Europe. Over here in the U.S., a new nationwide study released recently by Oceana found that 33 percent of seafood tested was mislabeled, according to Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

    Assumptive trust has been proven wrong in these examples. The sellers of the products have perhaps been deceived by their suppliers. The buyers of these products have been deceived, perhaps unintentionally, by the sellers.

    These examples raise some important questions about trust. On what basis should a retailer trust their supplier? Is a contract enough? Should they check every shipment from the supplier to ensure that the quality is up to standards – adopting trust but verify protocol, which is essentially no trust. Should there be an industry regulator that ensures minimum standards among suppliers? Will buyers of the product be willing to pay for these added quality control costs?

    The uproar that has followed suggests that deception is the most grievous crime that's been committed against consumers, so the companies need to ensure that their integrity is not compromised.

    Mattel faced similar issues when it had a massive recall of toys due to toxic lead paint that had been used by a Chinese supplier that was not adequately monitored. The answer in that case was that Mattel had an obligation to make sure that the products it was selling met basic standards for safety. A failure to do so would damage not only Mattel, but also the image of the entire industry. This has happened in banking post global financial crisis and Libor scandal.

    The answer for the horsemeat and fish trust issues is similar. The leading companies in the industry must make their organizations and supply chains trustworthy. This may involve requesting regulations of the industry as a whole, as Mattel and other toy companies did, to make sure that they meet minimum standards and that they are enforced. Also, Burger King, Tesco and other companies need to re-work their supply chains to ensure that they have long-term relationships with trustworthy partners and that these relationships involve mutual trust and collaboration to meet stakeholder expectations. These relationships should start with clear contracts and some monitoring but should evolve to high trust partnerships where there are mutual attempts at continuous improvement, transparent sharing and collaboration. Squeezing suppliers and driving unreasonable price reduction that benefits one partner at the expense of the other will lead to an eventual betrayal of trust somewhere in the supply chain. We, as consumers, need to support this – we need to buy from retailers that provide us with evidence that the supply chain is trustworthy. Companies like Nordstrom, Wegmans, Publix, Whole Foods, Costco and QuikTrip Convenience Stores, have demonstrated that they have built high trust organizations and that they deserve our business. This may not be the case with other companies. We cannot do our own DNA testing on the products we buy, but we can be more careful in discerning trustworthiness among those with whom we transact.

  • Thu, February 14, 2013 3:30 PM | Deleted user
    Bookmark and Share

    Many citizens in the United States have asked a rather puzzling question: how is it that we cannot manage to prevent assault rifles from being purchased by non-military personnel? It seems like such a common sense action and so clearly “the right thing to do” in the wake of a series of horrific mass killings and of children no less. The answer to this question tells us a lot about trust.

    The answer is that we do not adequately regulate the sale of assault rifles because there is an extremely effective and well-resourced lobbying firm, the NRA that has major influence over members of Congress. The NRA is so powerful that members of Congress are afraid of incurring its wrath. Please see this video for a compelling exposition of the source of power of the NRA.

    How this relates to trust is important. In a high trust society or organization, all stakeholder interests are considered in a fair and transparent process to arrive at decisions. What destroys trust is when the interests of one stakeholder are pursued at the expense of the other stakeholders and this occurs without fair process. For example, political corruption in Afghanistan or the ratings agencies serving their own profit needs rather than the security needs of investors buying rated bonds. Trust requires fair consideration be given to ALL legitimate stakeholder interests.

    In this case, there is a tremendous amount of money being spent by gun manufacturers to use the Second Amendment to protect their profits while putting citizens at more risk. The NRA is getting away with this because while they aggressively pursue their own economic interests, the American public is lulled into a more passive and less influential role.

    Where are the trust violations here? First, the NRA is using deception by saying that they are advocating for “their members.” Their members support some of the restrictions being proposed. In reality it is the weapons manufacturers whose interests (profits) they are trying to protect. Telling the truth here would expose the blatant self-interest, so it is important to focus on hunters and the Second Amendment rather than corporate weapons manufacturer and profits. This is a deceptive manipulation technique and one that destroys trust.

    The second trust violation is among members of Congress. They take the NRA money, or they vote with the NRA, to increase the chance of getting re-elected. This is clearly rational self-interest operating. Since the data show that the average successful Senate campaign cost over 7 million dollars in 2004, survival and self-interest in this untrustworthy system suggests: serve those who give you money. However, we know that trustworthy agents represent the interests of their trustors (the voters) who entrusted responsibility with them. They do not serve themselves at the expense of their trustors.

    Another lesson on trust is that we need to be more vigilant trustors. If we fall asleep, fail to monitor and test our trustees, they will often serve themselves at our expense. In the introduction to the book Congress and the Decline of Public Trust, Bill Bradley summarized the state of affairs: “Fine public servants are stuck in a bad system; in fact, money drives politics in America in a way that it never has before, even in its darkest moment...the unavoidable reality is that Congress is far more attentive to the corporation demanding relief from alternate minimum tax than to the family looking for help for escalating heath care costs.” Economically motivated special interests groups dominate American politics and crowd out what scholars have called rationally ignorant voters (they decide it is not worth it to take the time to be well informed). The video link about the NRA and the safety of children is an attempt to motivate us out of our slumber with righteous anger and emotion. Perhaps it's time we woke up and forced Congress to serve citizens’ needs and not the gun manufacturers operating through the NRA. If we cannot, is our system trustworthy or is it dangerously corrupted?

  • Mon, February 04, 2013 1:30 PM | Deleted user

    Bookmark and Share


    This week, BP settled criminal charges and agreed to pay 4 billion dollars. The Deepwater Horizon explosion that killed 11 people and caused devastating environmental and economic damage was tragic. It has been said that success has many fathers but failure is always an orphan. This is often true with trust violations. Research tells us that in our heart of hearts, trustors know that perfection is not possible and we are willing to forgive, but it also tells us that we only forgive when the offending party has acknowledged the wrong doing and made a genuine effort at trust repair.  While BP failed to reform itself adequately after its 2005 Texas Oil refinery explosion, the company deserves great credit for what it has done since the April 20, 2010 Gulf Oil spill.

     

    After failing at the outset due to Tony Hayward’s aloofness and rude comment about wanting his life back and misrepresenting the volume of oil that was spilling into the Gulf, BP’s record at taking responsibility has been excellent.

     

    On June 16, 2010, BP created a 20 billion dollar compensation fund and stops paying dividends. According to a US district judge, BP began paying out claims before the law required it. On July 26, 2010, BP removed Tony Hayward. By August 9, 2010, BP had spent over 6 billion dollars to contain and fix the leak. On September 8, 2010, BP released a 193 page report and accepted responsibility in part of the disaster.  On September 19, 2010, BP finally sealed the well.  BP has settled charges, paid massive penalties and each time expressed its desire to take responsibility. It has also spent millions of dollars in advertising trying to restore tourism in the Gulf. In contrast, Halliburton, the expert cement contractor hired by BP, has accepted no responsibility and hidden behind the indemnity clause in its contract with BP. Transocean, BP’s other major partner, recently paid a major fine and accepted some responsibility.

     

    The Deepwater Horizon spill was a tragedy and there remain over 20,000 abandoned wells in the Gulf, so we are not sure if the system as a whole has been made more trustworthy. We also do not yet know if BP has yet succeeded in the deeper reform of its safety culture and organizational processes. What we can say for sure is that BP is taking responsibility and seems to be on the road to doing the right thing. A part of real trustworthiness is admitting mistakes and taking responsibility. Let’s give BP some well deserved credit and let’s keep an eye on Halliburton. 

  • Sat, January 19, 2013 1:30 PM | Deleted user
    Bookmark and Share

    Andy Serwer, the Managing Editor of Fortune Magazine, was on Morning Joe on January 17, 2013 promoting the new 100 Best Companies to Work For issue. This list is created in large part by an employee trust survey. Serwer was asked why so many of the companies listed are privately held. Do they have an advantage? The answer is yes they do. Privately held companies are inherently more trustworthy for one major reason: they are under less pressure by investors to manage the business for each quarter so they take a longer-term view.

    What makes a company that takes a longer time horizon in decision-making more trustworthy? Trust is much more likely where there is an alignment of interests and incentives. When we take the longer-term view, there tends to be more alignment among stakeholders. This is the trust inducing rationale for bonus claw back provisions - create a disincentive for an executive seeking short-term benefit by creating a longer-term problem that someone else will have to solve. During the global financial crisis we learned of the expression “IBGYBG” in some emails at the ratings agencies. IBGYBG stands for “I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone” meaning lets do the deal, get the credit and let the next poor sucker sort out the disaster later. Game theory research in economics and prisoners dilemma research in psychology, confirms that people are more opportunistic and less cooperative when exchanges are framed as one-shot versus longer term relations..

    As an example, consider the possible conflict of Private Equity (PE) firms which tend not to hold a position for more than 5 or 6 years. The PE firm tells the hired gun management team that, if they improve the valuation of the company in 5 years, they will get a very large bonus. Will these executives have any incentive to invest in something that will put the five-year valuation at risk but may position the company well 10 or 20 years from now? Of course not. from a trust perspective, incentives and market forces that encourage managing for the next quarter, or for the next 5 years, lead to conflicts of interests with stakeholders in the ecosystem of the firm that have longer term interests (e.g., employees, suppliers, communities). This is why privately held companies like SAS and Quiktrip, which are listed on the 100 Best Companies to Work For, do not want to go public. They believe that the short-term opportunism demanded by the stock market will destroy the high trust cultures that they have so carefully nurtured.

    These high trust privately held firms have a long-term philosophy that guides them and benefits all stakeholders. This seems to have been lost in many public companies. The idea of sustainably leading for the long term goes back a long way. In the Iroquois nation constitution leaders were instructed as follows: “… in all your official acts, self interest shall be cast into oblivion….. return to the way of the Great Law which is just and right. Look and listen for the welfare of the whole people and have always in view not only the present but also the coming generations.” This is the origin of the sustainability expression “Seventh Generation.” Few CEOs will have the luxury of following the Iroquois way when the average investor holds a stock for about 7 months (used to be about 7 years). Until we find a way to get back to more patient, longer-term philosophy, the 100 Best Companies to Work For are more likely to be some very cool privately held companies.

  • Thu, January 10, 2013 1:30 PM | Deleted user
    Bookmark and Share

    In his article for the New York Times on January 3, 2013, John Schwartz described the government settlement with Transocean concerning the Deep Water Gulf oil spill. Transocean publicly announced that they were partially responsible for the Gulf oil spill disaster and agreed to pay a $100 million fine in violation of the Clean Water Act and civil penalties of $1 billion over the next five years. Not only have they paid a penance for their violation of the public trust, but they have also gone further and on a number of occasions shown remorse. In the Transocean statement, they mentioned the tragic death of 11 people and called the settlements “important agreements and positive step forward.” Transocean will have to prove that they are able to fulfill their promises in the next five years but Transocean is taking the right steps to repair trust and its reputation. But what about the other culpable party, Halliburton?

    Halliburton, as you may recall, was the cement expert under contract to BP. One of the contributing factors to the Deepwater Horizon explosion was the fact that a defective cement job on the well allowed gas to mix with oil. The actual cement that was used was not tested adequately to assure its stability and BP and Halliburton are each blaming (and suing) the other for negligence and fraud. To date Halliburton’s legal department seems to be driving its response and the company’s public relations department has been made irrelevant. In press reports announcing the Transocean settlement, Halliburton’s spokesperson told reporters: “We continue to believe that we have substantial legal arguments and defenses against any liability and that BP’s indemnity obligation protects us. Accordingly we will maintain our approach of taking all proper actions to protect our interests.” Halliburton may be taking a legitimate legal position and acting in the short-term interests of its shareholders, but what of their long-term reputation among industry partners and citizens at large? Does an indemnity provision in its drilling contract with BP mean that Halliburton bears no responsibility?

    Following the law is not the same as acting ethically and doing the right thing. Does a drilling firm have some obligation for drilling safe wells? As experts, if they are asked to drill a well that they believe is unsafe, do they have an ethical responsibility to refuse? As one attorney said: “Saying you were following orders is not a legitimate defense to a criminal act.”

    The Gulf oil spill was a perfect storm of risk, greed, error and negligence that violated the trust of the 11 people who died and scores of people and businesses that depend on this natural treasure. If all of the many players had been more concerned with doing the right thing and not how much money they had made or whether they had been protected by contracts, this disaster would never have happened. BP and now Transocean are at least standing up and owning their roles and taking steps to reform themselves and repair trust. Although BP made several early missteps, they have taken subsequent actions to begin to repair trust and pay compensatory damages. They originally set aside a fund of $20 billion with the U.S. government for damages and the company is reserving in excess of $40 billion for compensation. Only time will tell if BP has truly reformed enough to trust again but it is evident that they are taking serious steps unlike Halliburton.

    Having trustworthy agents who care about doing the right thing makes us much safer than engaging armies of lawyers and regulators. A concerned public and responsible industry leaders need to help put the untrustworthy out of business. Perhaps in the long term, Halliburton will be held accountable and, if they survive, they will form a real public relations department. Let us hope that truth and accountability prevail because Halliburton is now trying to grow its gas fracking business and that requires trustworthy agents who will do the right thing rather than hide behind clever contracts.

  • Thu, December 20, 2012 1:30 PM | Deleted user

    Bookmark and Share



     
          Private equity firm Cerberus Capital, after getting a call from an official at a California state teachers pension fund, decided to sell its interest in Freedom Group, the maker of the Bushmaster gun that was used in the senseless killing of 20 sixth graders. A close examination of Cerberus Capital’s statement is warranted by all corporate leaders and citizens (bold type added).

    “As a Firm, we are investors, not statesmen or policy makers. Our role is to make investments on behalf of our clients who are comprised of the pension plans of firemen, teachers, policemen and other municipal workers and unions, endowments, and other institutions and individuals. It is not our role to take positions, or attempt to shape or influence the gun control policy debate. That is the job of our federal and state legislators. There are, however, actions that we as a firm can take. Accordingly, we have determined to immediately engage in a formal process to sell our investment in Freedom Group. We will retain a financial advisor to design and execute a process to sell our interests in Freedom Group, and we will then return that capital to our investors. We believe that this decision allows us to meet our obligations to the investors whose interests we are entrusted to protect without being drawn into the national debate that is more properly pursued by those with the formal charter and public responsibility to do so.

    While I applaud the bold and unusual action by Cerberus Capital, I find many problems and vexing questions concerning this statement. First, everyone employed at Cerberus Capital is first a human being before he is an investor. Suggesting that we are “investors” who should not “take positions” on moral issues dehumanizes business people and justifies all sorts of morally questionable actions. Phrases like “it’s a business decision,” “it's business not personal” are similar expressions used to justify decisions that feel wrong. As human beings we have an obligation to consider the rest of humanity when we act and this INCLUDES how we invest and spend our money. While we can argue over the morality of investing in a cigarette company or a gun manufacturer that allows its assault weapons to be sold to non-military personnel, we should be clear that investing in companies that consistently engage in immoral activity cannot be justified by hiding behind economics.

    Second, Cerberus Capital seems to feel that they are “entrusted” to protect their investors. But do they have NO role in protecting other stakeholders? Is every decision they make designed to maximally benefit investors? What if maximum benefit to investors comes at the expense of society? Six year olds? The Newtown, Connecticut shooting marked the fourth time a Bushmaster has been implicated in a mass shooting since 1999. Does Cerberus Capital have some obligation to the wider group of stakeholders and shouldn’t this obligation inform everything they do including their decisions about which companies they invest in?

    I raise these issues because of a larger fear concerning trust and the financial services industry. Cerberus has gone a good thing but they and other investors (including all public pension funds) need to go further. My fear is that the Cerberus Capital statement reflects the wider philosophy among hedge funds, investment banks and private equity companies, and that they have yet to internalize the lessons of the global financial crisis. Taking actions that optimize earnings, stock price, or bonuses, while betraying other legitimate stakeholder interests, leads to an erosion of public trust. This will result in the loss of reputational capital and a call for more regulation to monitor companies that the public sees as opportunistic and untrustworthy. Rationalizing decisions by suggesting that it is good for investors is not sufficient today. Firms that operate in this way are inherently untrustworthy beyond the narrow set of stakeholders they care about. As more and more pension funds and citizens wake up to this fact, these firms will be increasingly at risk. We need companies that can earn the trust of all stakeholders. This can only happen when leaders accept that they are humans before they are investors and that ethical leadership requires taking principled positions not hiding behind economics. 

  • Thu, December 20, 2012 6:30 AM | Deleted user

    Bookmark and Share


    Even before Wall Street Banks were found complicit in the melt down which would be recorded in history books as “the global financial crisis,” measures of trust in business and CEO credibility were in decline. One of the few groups with lower trust scores was the U.S. Congress in which only about 10% of Americans currently say they have a great deal of confidence. Now CEOs are trying to step in to fix the government’s gridlock and dysfunction as we near the fiscal cliff. Their message is about in competitiveness and jobs something they argue both Democrats and Republicans should care about.

    The Wall Street Journal captured this dynamic in a profile about David Cote the CEO of Honeywell. Similarly General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt weighed in during a Dec 10 interview with Charlie Rose. While these and other CEOs are criticized by some groups as being motivated by self-interest and a desire to grow their profits, this development brings some very positive dynamics to a political and regulatory system that has lost all credibility and trust. First, business leaders can credibly create a common and practical platform for compromise between ideological combatants: jobs and competitiveness! A major root cause of dysfunction in Washington is a lack of common values that form the basis for governance. CEOs understand that you cannot run a large organization without a common mission. The November election proved that competitiveness and jobs is the common ground for governance and CEOs (along with groups representing labor) have a place at the table in this conversation. Second, business leaders help expose the dysfunction of the U.S. government relative to our global competitors. As Jeff Immelt said on Charlie Rose, the Chinese government has a long-term plan and they get things done. David Cote, after hearing the warring ideologists and lack of pragmatic results, said to a Washington group: “Who are you people? Is this the way you do the nation’s business? I’d fire all of you.” An essential dimension of American competitiveness is a trustworthy partnership between business and government to establish regulatory, taxation and other elements of a growth-friendly environment. While business earned the scorn heaped on them during the global financial crisis, a number of scholars have suggested that of the two partners, it is the government in the U.S. that has been the most dysfunctional from a governance and regulatory standpoint.

    Finally, with Warren Buffet leading the way, many CEOs have expressed willingness for shared sacrifice to solve our fiscal crisis and many other pressing problems of society. It is refreshing to see business people doing the right thing. Too often it seems that business scandals like money laundering and Libor appear on the front pages but the good news never gets reported. Congratulations to some business leaders who are helping to restore trust in business and in government. Without competent trustworthy leaders and institutions, there will surely be more cliffs ahead that put Americans at risk.


Follow us at  


©
Consortium for Trustworthy Organizations 2013  |  33 West 60th Street 4th Floor  |  New York, NY 10023
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software