What Motivates Leaders with Checkered Pasts
Not long after Rep. Eric Swalwell announced a gubernatorial bid in California, his campaign was sidelined following accusations of sexual abuse. It begs the question, did he know the accusations were on the horizon, and if so, “why would he run for office knowing he could be accused of sexual harassment or sexual abuse?” For leaders concerned with reputational risk, the matter involving Swalwell could also lead to questions around why persons pursue elected office, or major opportunities, when they have major character, integrity and ethical challenges.
To be clear, we are using this information as a case study, but for one reason: to help leaders make better decisions. As a practice, Spotlight PR avoids cases involving sexual harassment or sexual abuse. However, there are other reputational and ethics issues that could sideline a campaign, board position or other opportunity. We want to speak to those because we’ve seen a pattern of people taking big risks even when they know they have a checkered or problematic past. We’ve also seen leaders rush to the microphone, or accept interview requests, when they should decline.
For example, actor Ben Affleck condemned Harvey Weinstein when he was later accused of harassment himself. For years, Bill Cosby lectured the Black community on a host of issues, including respectability, while he had been accused of abusing women. These are examples of people speaking on issues when they may not be credible spokespersons on the topic.
Why does this happen?
Overly Focused on Other People
If I had a dollar for every time I heard a leader say, “but this person or that person did the same thing and nothing happened,” I’d be very wealthy. This isn’t a defense. And it isn’t a strategy. I wish more people would realize that this way of thinking seldom holds up in court, nor in the court of public opinion. We are each responsible for ourselves.
Hubris
Some people believe rules are for everyone except themselves. Or perhaps they’ve reached a level in their career and professional lives where they believe they are untouchable. This is one explanation for people who speak when they should be silent or launch campaigns when their past can undermine the very thing they’re trying to do. In other situations, a leader can believe that their transgressions are well-hidden, and that they’ll never be uncovered.
Longstanding Habit
If a person has a long-standing behavior, they likely do not give much thought about that behavior; it’s become commonplace. The behavior is part of a practice and pattern that seldom receives the critical thought it deserves. Also, if a leader has gone a significant period without exposure, they may believe that they are beyond reach or that their secret will forever remain hidden. It’s important to remember that grace runs out for people who perpetually violate it. It is imperative that leaders appreciate that exposure is always a possibility.
They are Less than Forthcoming with their Team
If a person runs for office, their own campaign as well as the opponent’s campaign will conduct oppositional research. This research uncovers the good and the bad. With a person like Swalwell, I wonder who knew what and when. Moreover, if the allegations are true, I would imagine it may be very difficult to share with staff, “I’ve done these horrible things.”
In other situations, a principal may be less than forthcoming with their team and advisors. However, the best advisors cannot advise on that which they do not know.
Discerning what to disclose and what to withhold is bigger than curating a polished image. It’s about instituting guardrails to protect you – from yourself. It’s also about ensuring longevity and success.
Remember, your advisors need full context to properly support you. Please also know that you do not have to sort out these and other PR issues alone. If you are navigating a challenge that involves reputational risk, book a consultation. We look forward to being in touch.