Society & CultureRelationshipsEducationSelf-ImprovementBusinessManagement

Grappling with the Gray

Yonason Goldson

Are you ethical? Join Rabbi Yonason Goldson and his panel of thinkers as they grapple with a new ethical challenge each week. Only by contemplating all sides and every angle can we improve ethical decision-making, build more trusting relationships, and help create a more ethical world.

Play

Open in

21 episodes
fortnightly
Avg 53 min
English

Episodes 21

Newest Oldest Longest

All20 Unplayed20 In progress0 Played0

Counted on this page — what you have heard stays on this device, so it is not something the list can be paged by.

#148
Wednesday · 55 min
Grappling with the Gray 148: Navigating the road to nowhere?
Have we begun to embrace our own irrelevance? That's the question that drives the discussion when Sam Ardery, Brian Reisman, and • Kirsten Yurich join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: More than a few years back, as my flight touched down on the runway, the pilot’s voice came over the intercom to inform us that we had just experienced the plane’s first fully automated landing. In the cabin, the passengers looked at one another wondering if we should applaud or scream in terror. For some reason, driverless cars don’t seem to evoke the same level of reaction. Maybe it's just the brave new world we live in. Maybe the stakes don’t seem as high on the road as they do in the skies. Maybe we know that, statistically, most auto accidents are caused by driver error. Or maybe it’s because, if we don’t like the idea, we’ll just call a taxi or book an Uber. Regardless of the reasoning, if the Minneapolis City Council has its way, we will be doubly safe. They recently passed legislation requiring drivers for all driverless cars. Needless to say, their motives are pure. After all, as one council member said, dogs and cats are getting squished, squished by driverless cars. Even worse, how many immigrant drivers may be losing income to robotic rideshares? Clearly, in their minds, it’s worth passing along the $31.50/ hour cost to passengers. In the end, the mayor thought differently and vetoed the bill. Anyone who has driven in New Jersey knows that in that state you can’t pump your own gas, a law that ensures some 7000 minimum-wage jobs are not going anywhere. But what about ATMS? Grocery store self-checkout? Self-operated elevators? Mechanical bowling alley pin-setters? Is there any logic behind allowing one type of automation over another? And, once the technology becomes reliable, is there any good reason not to let people make their own decisions whether or not to use it? Meet this week’s panel: Sam Ardery is a national mediator, trial lawyer, consultant, speaker, and author. He teaches negotiation at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law and is author of Positively Conflicted: Engaging with Courage, Compassion and Wisdom in a Combative World. Brian Reisman is a software engineer and tech maven. He is also a professional speaker who works with leaders to promote a culture of trust and trustworthiness in work and life. Kirsten Yurich is an Organizational Performance Management Consultant, Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc., and Adjunct Professor of Education at Felician University.
#147
October 28 · 1 hr 8 min
Grappling with the Gray 147: The Wisdom of "12 Angry Men"?
Is unanimity cause for confidence? That's the question that drives the conversation when Paul Edwards, Diane Helbig, and Tamsen Webster, MA, MBA join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: Nobody seems happy about the Lindsay Clancy verdict. Many liberals are outraged that a single intransigent juror could cause a mistrial in place of acquittal. Many conservatives are outraged that a woman could be held unaccountable for the murder of her three children. Ancient Judean law seems to come down on both sides. “No one commits a crime,” the sages teach, “unless overtaken by a spirit of insanity.” Taken at face values, it might seem that we can all claim temporary insanity for any transgression. Given that the insanity defense is sometimes entirely just, how do we define where the boundaries lie, and how do we prevent it from being abused? If that isn’t enough food for thought, when deciding a capital case, a unanimous verdict of guilty resulted in the case being thrown out of court. Without at least one dissenting voice, the judges were forced to suspect themselves of unconscious bias, preferring to let a likely criminal go free rather than risk the slender possibility of putting an innocent man to death. Why does our system require a unanimous verdict? Do the pros really outweigh the cons? Is the Clancy case an example of where moral relativism can lead us, or does it characterize a judicial system that seeks to integrate compassion into its quest for true justice? Meet this week’s panel: Paul Edwards is a US Army veteran and former ghostwriter. He is currently a relapsed insurance agent favored by faith-based business leaders – when he’s not escaping the Arizona heat coaching ice-hockey. Diane Helbig is Chief Improvement Catalyzer at Helbig Enterprises, providing guidance and training to business owners and leaders around the world. Tamsen Webster is a keynote speaker, message strategist, and “Idea Whisperer.” She uses her proprietary Red Thread method to help audiences, organizations, and individuals build and tell their stories to promote real, transformative change.
#146
October 14 · 54 min
Grappling with the Gray #146: Does size really matter?
People come in all shapes and sizes. So do countries. But which is more important? That's the question that drives the discussion when Deb Coviello, ☘️Mark O'Brien, and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: Have you ever compared the way countries appear on a map with how they appear on a globe? When representing three dimensional space in two dimensions, you can preserve either actual shape or actual size, but not both. When the 16th century European cartographer Geert de Kremer, better known as Mercator, produced the map still in use today, he favored shape over size. That’s why equatorial regions, most notably Africa, appear smaller than they are, while other regions appear larger. In a recent United Nations vote, 164 countries voted to “correct” the map. Six nations abstained. Only the United States voted no. U.S. representative to the U.N. Yaryna Ferencevych declared: “Resolutions like this and the ideological agenda they promote, are… the reason this institution is losing its credibility. When the United Nations questions why it is losing legitimacy in the world, and is not taken seriously, time and again, we point to resolutions such as this.” Obviously, there are more pressing issues. But commitment to accuracy is also a value. A better question might have been whether accurate size is more important than accurate shape, and whether ideology is driving one view over the other. Is this really an issue worthy of discussion, or is it just another distracting skirmish in the culture wars that suck so much oxygen out of the global forum? Meet the panel: Deb Coviello, aka the Drop in CEO, is an author, speaker, podcast host, and silver medalist curler who coaches C-Suite leaders of today and tomorrow to navigate challenges with confidence. Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs. Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications.
#145
May 28 · 1 hr
Grappling with the Gray #145: Artistic license or defamation?
How far must we go to anticipate unintended consequences? That's the question that drives the conversation when Stewart Wiggins, Peter Winick, and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: Have you ever watched a movie “based on a true story”? How about “inspired by true events”? Two Miami police officers were deeply uninspired by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck’s recent movie, The Rip. In fact, they are suing the actors' production company, Artists Equity. The film does not mention officers Jason Smith and Jonathan Santana by name. Nevertheless, they claim that colleagues and family members have recognized them from the film’s portrayal, and that they have suffered "substantial harm to their personal and professional reputations [from implied] misconduct, poor judgment, and unethical behavior in connection with a real law enforcement operation." The lawsuit claims that the "the film's use of unique, non-generic details” points clearly to the plaintiffs. By opening with text, “inspired by true events,” the producers become culpable for defamation by including a non-factual narrative of corruption, graft, and murder. The plaintiff’s claim intentional infliction of emotional distress as well. Whether the case has merit from a legal standpoint is not our discussion here. But to what extent are filmmakers responsible for implications and innuendo that might lead to reputational damage? If, as the plaintiffs claim, they have been identified from the film by colleagues and family members, is that not “defamation by implication” as the claim suggests? Or are they drawing more attention to themselves through the lawsuit, which many commenters see as frivolous and opportunistic? Meet this week’s panel: Stewart Wiggins joins us from Paris. He is Chief Advisor at Induna Advisors, working to significantly increase company revenue by developing positive client reports and establishing solid business relationships. Peter Winick works with individuals and organizations to build and grow revenue streams through their thought leadership platforms and is host of the Leveraging Thought Leadership podcast. Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications.
#144
May 20 · 1 hr 7 min
Grappling with the Gray #144: Social justice or moral anarchy?
Can social justice warriors turn their campaign against their own cause? That's the question that drives the conversation when JC Glick, Sarah Kalmeta, and S. Scott Mason join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: By now you’ve probably heard about the notorious NY Times podcast in which progressive elites endorsed the practice of “microlooting” - a prettified euphemism for stealing. Their reasoning begins by positing that not all acts of theft are equal - which is absolutely true, and builds upon the presumption that some acts of theft can be justified - which is also true. What’s chilling is how those justifications are defined, and where they might take us as individuals and as a society. Using a friend’s Netflix account? No problem. Steal a library book? Never. Leave a restaurant without paying your bill? Unthinkable. Swipe a painting from the Louvre. Absolutely. Stealing from Whole Foods is okay because it’s an upscale store - especially if you’re going to give the stolen food to a homeless person. Stealing from a Walmart or Costco is not “very significant as a moral wrong.” Stealing from corporations is a virtue. This Robin Hood mentality extends beyond theft. A disgruntled employee sets fire to a Kimberly Clark warehouse? Tactically unwise, but morally defensible. And we can at least sympathize with the murder of Brian Thompson since, as United Healthcare C.E.O., he was guilty of social murder himself. But getting iced coffee in a plastic cup? “That is a profoundly selfish, immoral, collectively destructive action.” So is flying for pleasure. And “private schools should be mostly illegal.” Has our collective moral compass become utterly unwound? Or are these positions ethically defensible? Meet this week’s panel: JC Glick is a retired Army Ranger Lieutenant Colonel. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as CEO of the Commit Foundation, an organization that helps high-performance veterans find their next adventure. Sarah Kalmeta is a speaker and executive facilitator who helps leaders make better decisions under pressure. She’s the founder of Pivot Point International, with nearly two decades in global aviation and operations. Scott Mason, aka the Myth Slayer, is a speaker, podcast host, and coach working with executives and entrepreneurs to Magnetize & Monetize Professional Freedom by Dislodging Toxic Myths to Ignite the Charisma Within.
#143
May 7 · 50 min
Grappling with the Gray #143: Is it possible to be too polite?
When does too much sugar stop being sweet? That's the question that drives the conversation when David Fink, Monica Kreuger, and ☘️Mark O'Brien join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: After a recent visit to Urgent Care, I vented to my wife how annoyed I was by the doctor. It wasn’t that she was ill-mannered or curt. Just the opposite. “If it isn’t too much trouble, may I ask you to please remove your glasses?” That’s 15 words for what could have been said in four. And if it were too much trouble, what wouldn’t be? “Please lean back for these eye drops. I don’t want to stain your lovely shirt.” I was wearing the same shirt I’m wearing now. Plain white. Professional, but hardly lovely. She even repeated the comment. Within minutes I was grimacing the way you do when someone puts too much sugar in your coffee. “It’s better than being rude,” my wife replied. She’s right, of course. But is there a middle ground between being too polite and not polite enough? When politeness feels contrived or insincere, doesn’t it end up having an effect opposite to what’s intended? Or is it enough that someone is making the effort to be polite even if they may be doing it imperfectly? One of the principles of ethics is to presume positive intent. But is intent alone ever not enough? Meet this week’s panel: David Fink is a litigation attorney, rabbinic scholar, author, lecturer, educator, and moral philosopher. Monica Kreuger is founder and CEO of both Global Infobrokers Inc. and Praxis School of Entrepreneurship. She also chairs the board of Luthercare Community and is TEC Canada Chair in Saskatoon. Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs.
#142
April 22 · 46 min
Grappling with the Gray #142: Favoritism or Meritocracy?
Is unequal sometimes fair? That's the question that drives the conversation when Catherine Fitzgerald, 🟦 Dr. Melissa Hughes, and Machen MacDonald join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. And here is the topic we’ll be discussing: Recently, a couple’s 22-year-old daughter graduated from an Ivy League college. As a graduation present, her parents bought her a new car, while other relatives paid for her first month’s rent, furniture, and a trip to Europe. The 25-year-old sister is now resentful, claiming that she was denied a trip to Europe, and that the younger sister stole her college fund and will soon be earning a good salary. The parents respond that they refused to send her to Europe straight out of high school because she was too young, that she chose not to go to college, and that she lives at home rent free. Commenters on Reddit accuse the parents of spoiling their children, and supported the older daughter’s accusation of favoritism. Are these accusations justified? Or is this an example of the entitlement culture that seems to be growing increasingly pervasive? And how might the same kind of tension appear in the workplace and in society at large? Meet this week’s panel: Catherine Fitzgerald is a speaker, writer, certified coach, and founder of BrassTacksWithHeart - Executive Coaching. She works with founders and their leaders as they navigate the choppy waters of aligning people, performance, and profits. Melissa Hughes is Founder and Principal of the Andrick Group, applying recent brain research to improve employee engagement, company culture, team dynamics, and innovation. Machen MacDonald is President of the ProBrilliance Leadership Institute, elevating leaders’ mindsets to grow themselves and their organizations. He is also a Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc.
#141
April 6 · 44 min
Grappling with the Gray #141: Educational vs. personal integrity?
Will the common good prove the death of common sense? That's the question that drives the conversation when Mark Brown, CSP, Deb Coviello, and • Kirsten Yurich join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic. Last year, world civilization teacher Sarah Inama at Idaho’s Lewis and Clark Middle School resigned rather than comply with orders to remove from her classroom a poster deemed inappropriate by administrators, who said the poster violated the school’s “content neutral” policy, which prohibits any speech or messaging that might reflect personal opinions, religious beliefs, or political ideologies. The sign read, “Everyone Is Welcome Here,” and it showed hands of different colors. That was it. The district’s chief academic officer Marcus Myers clarified that, “The political environment ebbs and flows, and what might be controversial now might not have been controversial three, six, nine months ago.” Ms. Inama received an outpouring of support from the community, but it wasn’t enough to change the district’s mind. In her resignation letter, she wrote: “I cannot align myself nor be complicit with the exclusionary views and decisions of the administration. It is deeply troubling that the people running this district and school have allowed a welcoming and inclusive message for my students to be considered controversial, political, and, worst of all, an opinion. “I hope for the sake of the students in your district that you can remember the core values of public education. To serve all citizens, foster an inclusive and safe learning environment, and protect your staff and students from discriminatory behavior.” Does the school administration have a point? If so, what is it? And is it better for a teacher like Sarah Inama to make a statement by publicly resigning or to remain in her job to serve her students while trying to change the system from within? Meet this week’s panel: Deb Coviello, aka the Drop in CEO, is an author, speaker, podcast host, and silver medalist curler who coaches C-Suite leaders of today and tomorrow to navigate challenges with confidence. Mark Brown is a world champion international speaker, executive coach and, most important, devoted husband of Andrea. Kirsten Yurich is an Organizational Performance Management Consultant, Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc., and Adjunct Professor of Education at Felician University.
#140
March 30 · 50 min
Grappling with the Gray #140: Deconstructing the big picture?
Should "what do I deserve" ever take a back seat to "what can I give"? That's the question that drives the discussion when Lori Halverson, Allen Hauge, and Jeff Koziatek join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is the topic we’ll be discussing: An employee posted the following on Reddit: I lost a schedule bid at work recently to an employee with far less seniority. The reason given to me was, “He is a single father, and that schedule works better with his son’s school schedule.” Not to be insensitive, but so what? My time is not less valuable because I have no kids. I get the logic, but I could not give a care about his schedule or his problems. I have done my time, and I earned that bid, plain and simple. I have filed a grievance with HR. The crux of it is that I was discriminated against for not having kids, in an attempt to get the schedule I bid on. A few coworkers have mentioned off the cuff that I should let it go because he’s a single father. They’ve said I “don’t get it because I don’t have any kids.” Responses on Reddit were mixed. On the one hand, seniority should carry privilege. On the other hand, shouldn’t actual needs trump personal preferences? What’s the ethical approach to this kind of dilemma, and what can leaders do to navigate these kinds of conflicts? Meet this week’s panel: Lori Halverson is an executive coach, speaker, and Vistage chair, helping CEOs and top executives look forward to Mondays and flourish through positive intelligence. Allen Hauge is a master chair with Vistage International, Inc. He works with CEOs to devise strategies for success in business and in life. Jeff Koziatek is an executive coach and keynote speaker, helping professionals to navigate change, sharpen focus, avoid burnout, and make a difference. He is also one of St. Louis Business Monthly's 100 St. Louisans you should know.
#139
March 4 · 46 min
Grappling with the Gray #139: Pilot vs. Passenger?
Can we use "the greater good" as an excuse to exempt ourselves from personal responsibility? That's the question that drives the conversation when Sam Ardery, Shannon Lee, and David Marlow join me to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: An Alaska Airlines customer reported buying a first class ticket from Costa Rica to Seattle, an 8-hour international flight. Upon arriving at the gate, they were informed that they were being bumped down to economy class to make way for two pilots who were traveling to make a connecting flight. After the customer had paid for first class, the airline not only took away the seat but also the passenger’s breakfast, then failed to offer even a drink or a special snack. The anticipated luxury flight turned into a cramped, hungry ordeal. Apparently, a pilot shortage has compelled airlines to offer pilots the perk of first class travel when they “deadhead” to make connecting flights. But does that justify refusing passengers the seats they’ve paid for to solve their own logistics and personnel problems? And if it does, do the airlines have a responsibility to do more to offset the passenger’s inconvenience? Meet this week’s panel: Sam Ardery is a national mediator, trial lawyer, consultant, speaker, and author. He teaches negotiation at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law and is author of Positively Conflicted: Engaging with Courage, Compassion and Wisdom in a Combative World. Shannon Lee is a CEO coaching chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc. She works with organizations and executive teams to improve execution by defining, measuring, and standardizing the leadership behaviors required for businesses to perform well. David Marlow, aka the Ikigai Guy and the Versatile Guru, is a coach, speaker, and author who helps people live into their purpose and helps companies bring their purpose to their products and their people.
#138
February 25 · 54 min
Grappling with the Gray #138: Is too much attention obscuring who we are?
Are we overdue for reexamining the benefits of modesty? That's the question that drives the conversation when JC Glick, Brian Reisman, and • Sue Tinnish, PhD join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: A study published in the journal Human Brain Mapping suggests a variety of benefits that accompany modest behavior. These include better acceptance of constructive criticism and superior regulation of emotions. Modest people tend to be less self-centered and less emotionally vulnerable to rejection. Researchers found that people who are intellectually humble have less need to be right all the time, which makes them better at examining evidence and evaluating which argument is strongest. Although the study did not address traditional modesty as relates to dress, the discarding of social mores had arguably contributed to the hyper-sexualization of modern society, leading to distorted perceptions, harmful stereotypes, and objectification, especially among women and girls. Social media has accelerated the cultural trend toward self-adulation, and common perceptions defining success in terms of fame, wealth, and power add fuel to the fire. Have we created a mindset that makes us more insecure, more dogmatic, and more resistant to the notion of personal growth? Is it true that we have to play the game to gain the recognition we need to compete? If so, is our desire for success increasing toxicity in our families, our communities, and our workplaces? If so, what can we do about it? Meet this week’s panel: JC Glick is a retired Army Ranger Lieutenant Colonel. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as CEO of the Commit Foundation, an organization that helps high-performance veterans find their next adventure. Brian Reisman is a software engineer and tech maven. He is also a professional speaker who works with leaders to promote a culture of trust and trustworthiness in work and life. Sue Tinnish is an executive coach, employing a unique blend of soft skills and technical knowledge, as well as a Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc. #ethics #leadership #integrity #accountability #culture
#137
February 11 · 1 hr 4 min
Grappling with the Gray #137: Can we escape the cult of partisanship?
Has political ideology crossed the line into cult mentality? That's the question that drives the conversation when special guest Daniella Mestyanek Young joins me for this week's episode of Grappling with the Gray. Here is our topic: After the September 10 assassination of Charlie Kirk, reports filled the headlines of tweets and posts celebrating his murder. One teacher in Pennsylvania allegedly shared a post on social media calling Kirk a "racist, xenophobic, transphobic, islamophobic, sexist, white nationalist mouthpiece." Days later, a Brazilian comedian wrote that Kirk had "died too late" and said that he "was the reason for a Nazi demonstration where they marched in tribute to him. Good riddance!" These and similar comments were widely condemned, especially by conservative Republicans. Three months later, President Donald Trump responded to the murder of Rob Reiner, calling him “deranged,” “very bad for our country,” and suggesting that his death was "reportedly due to the anger he caused others" by his "raging obsession" with Trump. Far more Democrats than Republicans took exception to his words. Is this an example of cult mentality in American politics? Donald Trump was not the first to employ extremist rhetoric, but he has certainly accelerated its normalization. If we can’t agree on the need for civil discourse, how can we possibly work together to maintain a functioning society? How does cult mentality encourage and justify this kind of behavior, as well as the double standards that make it acceptable in the minds of each side even as they condemn it from the other? And what can we do about it? Meet this episode’s special guest: Daniella Mestyanek Young is a US army combat veteran, Harvard scholar, TEDx speaker, and bestselling author. Her new book, The Culting of America, examines how cult tactics have quietly infiltrated American life, especially politics, and why they are so effective at keeping followers in line even when leaders disregard their own principles and values.
#136
January 28 · 55 min
Grappling with the Gray #136: Jumping to conclusions without a net?
Have you ever been the victim of mistaken identity? That's the question that drives the conversation when Kelly Paxton - Pink Collar Crime Expert, Annette Taylor, and Tamsen Webster, MA, MBA join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: A recent post recounted the following story: A delivery driver was exiting an upscale Boston hotel, when the driver of a Porsche mistook him for the valet, tossed him his keys, and said, “Keep it close, I’ll only be 10 or 15 minutes!” The delivery guy calmly caught the keys, took the car for a short joy ride, then left it in the middle of the intersection with the door wide open and the engine running. Comments on the post celebrated the story, and several readers shared stories of their own. In a similar situation, one mis-occupationed valet parked the car in a tow-away zone. In another case, the purported valet simply drove off, reasoning that “if you gave me your keys, now it’s my ride.” Are any of these responses justified? How much license do we have when obnoxious individuals literally invite us to put them in their place? We do love vigilante stories. It’s such fun to root for mavericks who restore justice when the system fails. But are we making things worse for ourselves and for society by fighting fire with fire? Meet the panel: Kelly Paxton is a Certified Fraud Examiner, former Private Investigator, Professional Speaker, Podcast Host, and author of Embezzlement: How to Prevent, Detect and Investigate Pink-Collar Crime. Annette Taylor is a researcher of evolutionary psychology and biology. Her website, Cavedweller Club, offers guidance and insights on how we can better understand the way our own hardwiring influences unconscious bias and decision making. Tamsen Webster is a keynote speaker, message strategist, and “Idea Whisperer.” She uses her proprietary Red Thread method to help audiences, organizations, and individuals build and tell their stories to promote real, transformative change. #ethics #culture #accountability #mindset
Dec 31, 2025 · 1 hr 11 min
Grappling with the Gray #135: Waging lawfare to defend warfare?
Is exaggeration just another synonym for lying? That the question that drives the conversation when Jennifer H. Elder, CSP, CPA, JC Glick, and ☘️Mark O'Brien join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: Speaking truth to power is one of the foundational principles of any society built on ethics and the rule of law. Senator Mark Kelly claims that’s what he was doing when he joined five other lawmakers urging service members to refuse illegal orders from their superiors, alluding to military strikes against cartel drug runners. Writing for National Review, Andrew McCarthy argues convincingly that, while Senator Kelly is not guilty of sedition (of which he has been accused), his message was ill-advised and wrongheaded. Without getting into the weeds of legal definitions, we might frame the issue as politicizing the military vs. weaponizing the justice system. Senator Kelly’s message threatens to disrupt military efficiency by undermining the chain of command, while charges of criminality seemingly overstate objections to the propriety of the message. If we insist on exaggerating or otherwise misrepresenting both justification for our positions and claims against our ideological opponents, do we not make it impossible to honestly debate the issues and work toward reasoned resolutions? How have we ended up in a place where rhetoric is more valued than substance? And what can we do about it? Meet the panel: Jennifer Elder is a CPA and Certified Speaking Professional who helps leaders future-proof their businesses by making smart decisions and staying ethical. JC Glick is a retired Army Ranger Lieutenant Colonel. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as CEO of the Commit Foundation, an organization that helps high-performance veterans find their next adventure. Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs. #ethics #leadership #integrity #accountability #culture
Dec 18, 2025 · 51 min
Grappling with the Gray #134: Does social status obligate social good?
Does celebrity impose a higher standard of social responsibility? That's the question that drives the conversation when Christopher Bauer, Diane Helbig, and Peter Winick join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: In recent weeks, two stories from the wide world of sports have made the headlines. In one, the FBI announced it had conducted a "massive, nationwide takedown" of two separate and illegal poker and sports-betting schemes with ties to Mafia families. The schemes reportedly spanned years and involved illicit gains from wire fraud, money laundering, extortion and gambling. More recently, Boston College senior Shane Hanafin was the only player to stand as the band played the alma mater after the last game of the season. He then remained on the football field for an hour. Despite a disappointing 1-10 record for the year, Shane felt compelled to linger as a demonstration of his gratitude for the opportunity to play. Fans and social media viewers alike found the story touching and inspiring. Star players make a fortune playing their games and endorsing products. Some of them leverage their sports careers to go into politics or acting. Young children of all ages look up to them as role models. So here’s the question: Does their notoriety impose upon them an obligation to hold themselves to a high standard of personal integrity? When they engage in scandalous behavior, are they more guilty than the average citizen? If we’ve come to expect little in moral discipline from our elected officials, is it reasonable for us to expect anything more from celebrity athletes? Meet the panel: Christopher Bauer is a Speaker, Author, and Consultant on Ethics, Compliance, and Accountability. Diane Helbig is Chief Improvement Catalyzer at Helbig Enterprises, providing guidance and training to business owners and leaders around the world. Peter Winick works with individuals and organizations to build and grow revenue streams through their thought leadership platforms and is host of the Leveraging Thought Leadership podcast. #ethics #leadership #integrity #accountability #culture
Dec 3, 2025 · 45 min
Grappling with the Gray #133: Are lottery players getting played?
Can the greater good become an excuse for doing bad? That's the question that drives the conversation when ☘️Mark O'Brien, S. Scott Mason, and • Kirsten Yurich join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic. Revenue from state lotteries goes to support a host of social causes, including education, environment, and veterans, among others. However, Fortune Magazine reported last year that: “The average adult living in the poorest 1 percent of zip codes spends almost 5 percent (or $600 annually) of their income on lottery tickets, per the analysis. . . . Those living in the wealthiest 1 percent of zip codes spend only $150 on tickets, amounting to 0.15 percent of their paycheck.” Writing for National Review, Ben Connolly argues that the lottery is essentially a tax on the poor, observing that: “If you eliminated serial ticket buyers, and states only took money from people who bought a lottery ticket once a year on their birthday, state lotteries probably wouldn’t even cover their costs.” He goes on to argue that: “Gambling is a vice. It is not a social good. It is not an individual good. One of the roles of the conservative in society is to frown upon vices, to enforce social stigma against those activities that harm both the individual and society. Whether or not you believe that adults should be free to make their own choices about their money, including choosing to waste it on sports betting or lotteries, every conservative [and even libertarian] should agree that states shouldn’t be profiting from a vice.” We recognize that drug addiction undermines the health of our society. Is gambling addiction different? Should gambling be outlawed, or at least controlled, like drugs? And if not, does it then matter if government profits from it? Meet the panel: Jennifer Elder is a CPA and Certified Speaking Professional who helps leaders future-proof their businesses by making smart decisions and staying ethical. Scott Mason, aka the Myth Slayer, is a speaker, podcast host, and coach working with executives and entrepreneurs to Magnetize & Monetize Professional Freedom by Dislodging Toxic Myths to Ignite the Charisma Within. Kirsten Yurich is an Organizational Performance Management Consultant, Peer Leaders Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc., and Adjunct Professor of Education at Felician University. #ethics #culture #accountability #leadership #socialgood
#132
Nov 26, 2025 · 38 min
Grappling with the Gray #132: White House (East Wing) Down?
How many of the issues we fight about are worth fighting about? That’s the question that drives the conversation when Krista Crawford, Ph.D., MBA, SPHR, Josh Green, and Jolanta Pomiotlo join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: In a recent article, Politico quoted former First Lady Betty Ford as saying that if the White House West Wing is the “mind” of the nation, then the East Wing — the traditional power center for first ladies — is the “heart.” The implication seems to be that Donald Trump’s tearing down of the East Wing to build a new ballroom is an assault on history. The president argues that the tents currently used for big events are unsightly, expensive, and cause damage to the White House lawn. Critics condemn the project as a “symbolic blow” to the East Wing’s legacy as a place where women made history. In 1948, Harry Truman was widely criticized for constructing the now-famous balcony. Truman explained that the awnings that shaded the White House facade were unsightly, and that the balconies would pay for themselves in a few years through reduced electricity consumption. (He also had the entire interior of the building gutted and rebuilt.) Before that, Thomas Jefferson was castigated for installing eastern and western colonnades, which were later replaced by Teddy Roosevelt. Are these past and present cases comparable? Is the president’s failure to navigate the standard public review process an act of imperial disregard for the law of merely cutting through red tape? In short, is this issue just the latest partisan bickering blown out of proportion, or is it really a subject worthy of debate? Meet the panel: Krista Crawford is a human resource consultant, adjunct instructor at Virginia Tech and Champlain College, and Group Chair with Vistage Worldwide, Inc. Josh Green is a keynote speaker and TEDx speaker. He advises leaders in business strategy, business growth, and leadership development. Jolanta Pomiotlo is Vice President of Information Technology for EXSIF Worldwide who manages innovative initiatives aimed at reducing operating costs, improving profit, and growing revenue. #ethics #leadership #integrity #accountability #culture
#131
Nov 19, 2025 · 54 min
Grappling with the Gray #131: Giving away the keys to the kingdom?
Why are we so enthusiastically embracing our own dumbness? That's the question that drives the conversation when Deb Coviello, Stewart Wiggins, and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel for another episode of Grappling with the Gray. Here is our topic: You look over the report written by a team of your employees and smile inwardly. It’s professionally formatted, with table of contents, meaningful-sounding headlines, and compelling bullet points. But as you begin reading through it, your internal smile fades. You quickly recognize it was AI generated, with no human contribution whatsoever. As polished as it looks on the surface, when "you dig deeper,” as one workplace expert put it, “it lacks real substance and meaning, and may not make any sense at all." Now you need to expend time and effort calling in the team, explaining why their work is unsatisfactory, and give them clearer guidelines for getting the job done… or simply do it yourself. There’s a new word to describe this: Workslop, defined by HBR as AI generated work content that masquerades as good work, but lacks the substance to meaningfully advance a given task. Of 1,150 U.S.-based full-time employees across industries, 40% report have received workslop in the last month. HBR estimates for an organization of 10,000 workers, this results in over $9 million per year in lost productivity. Why is this happening? Is it inevitable that every new tool accelerates our collective laziness and irresponsibility, or is something else going on? And what can we do about it? Meet the panel: Deb Coviello, aka the Drop in CEO, is an author, speaker, podcast host, and silver medalist curler who coaches C-Suite leaders of today and tomorrow to navigate challenges with confidence. Stewart Wiggins joins us from Paris. He is Chief Advisor at Induna Advisors, working to significantly increase company revenue by developing positive client reports and establishing solid business relationships. Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications. #ethics #leadership #integrity #accountability #culture
#130
Nov 12, 2025 · 48 min
Grappling with the Gray #130: From Socrates to Charlie Kirk?
Do sides matter any more? That's the question that will drive the discussion when Kimberly Davis, Naya Lekht, PhD, and ☘️Mark O'Brien join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: Writing last week in the Wall Street Journal, Cal State University political science Professor Kevin Wallsten cited a national survey he conducted last year. Asked about “using violence to stop a speech” promoting a “personally offensive” position, 80% percent of Americans responded “never acceptable.” The percentage of republicans was only marginally more than democrats. However, generational responses tell a different story. Here’s the breakdown of respondents who refused to condone using violence to suppress speech under any circumstances: Boomers – 93% Gen X – 86% Millennials – 71% Gen Z – 58% This has nothing to do with hate speech, merely free speech. Watching clips of Charlie Kirk’s campus debates, it’s hard to find an example of him belittling or insulting those who challenged him. He rallied an impressive library of facts and offered coherent arguments to make his points. There were few who could hold their own with him in debate, and the college crowds often responded with applause. It’s hard not to draw comparisons with Socrates, condemned to drink poison for the crime of forcing people to confront the inconsistencies of their own views. With more than 4 out of 10 young people believing that violence is an acceptable response to disagreement, how do we prevent society from disintegrating into chaos, both nationally and internationally? How do you engage others in discourse when they’ve already concluded that you’re not only wrong, but dangerously evil? Meet the panel: Kimberly Davis is an author, TEDx speaker, and founder of the Brave Leadership University, leading development programs world-wide, around authentic leadership, purpose, presence, and influence. Naya Lekht is a research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, promoting synergy between self-awareness and the world which we observe. Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs. #ethics #culture #accountability #generations #leadership
#129
Nov 5, 2025 · 47 min
Grappling with the Gray #129: The ethics of gerrymandering?
Does bad behavior ever justify bad behavior? That's the question that drives the conversation when Natalie Renee Parker and N. Wyman Winbush II, Captain USNR-Retired, MBA join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray. Here is our topic: Congressional gerrymandering has been going on in America for over a century. Originally, it was used to marginalize black voters by lumping them into homogenous districts, thereby diluting their political influence state- and country-wide. Lately, it’s become a weapon of Republicans against Democrats, and Democrats against Republicans. After Texas Republicans began implementing their plan to gain five seats in congress by redrawing district lines, California Governor Gavin Newsom declared he would respond by doing the same thing in his state. Which raises the age-old question: do two wrongs make a right? In fact, Texas could make (and has made) exactly the same claim. Massachusetts has had 5 Republican governors out of the last seven, yet the state doesn’t have one single Republican representative. 40 percent of New Englanders historically vote Republican, yet they have virtually no representation in the House. Arguing “they started it” is hardly a strategy to affect meaningful change. The 2019 Supreme Court decision not to interfere in state redistricting may have been the right choice with respect to legal principle, but it left the door open to the kind of political range war we’re witnessing now. With the existence of various software systems to guide honest map-drawing, it’s a matter of will rather than way. If leaders continue playing one identity group against the other to protect their own power, how is democracy supposed to function? And what can We the People do about it? Meet the panel: Natalie Renee Parker is a senior Executive Leadership Coach and consultant, Helping companies increase their impact by creating healthy cultures and unleashing the power of people. Wyman Winbush, aka the Wisdom Broker, is a retired US Navy captain, a Professional Speaker-Trainer, and Multi-Disciplined Problem Solver, helping leaders become better leaders and high-performance-minded individuals to exceed their expectations. #ethics #leadership #integrity #accountability #culture

Showing 1–20 of 21 episodes