It never ceases to amaze me that large organizations who rely on an image of trust and credibility in order to function will take a "pass" on an opportunity to seize the initiative when confronted with a potentially serious issue.
In this case, it's alleged that senior members of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) were surfing porn sites while their country's financial system faced challenges not seen in two generations; deep-rooted problems that brought their country's economy to the brink of disaster.
What goes through the minds of people who read an article that recaps such allegations? What do they want to know?
- Does your organization care that this has happened?
- Does your organization condone this activity?
- What are you doing to deal with the matter?
- What are you going to do to prevent it in the future?
- What really matters to your organization?
- In spite of this issue, are you continuing to fulfill your mandate?
None of these are difficult questions to answer. And no unrealistic commitments will be made by answering them in a simple and straightforward manner. So, why on earth would an institution like the SEC decline to comment? The issue is attractive from a media standpoint because it has three elements: sex/porn; power and money.
"Turtling", being unresponsive to the media, can lead people to think that your organization lacks accountability, leadership and doesn't even recognize its own values or when they've been violated; not a good approach for an agency that relies on all three aspects in order to carry out its enormously important function of regulating the capital markets in the world's largest economy.
I look forward to following this one. Because of the way they've handled it, I expect to see it linger.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment