A leader needs to know about problems (behaviors, actions, etc.) in order to accept, approve, condone, etc. or the opposite--reject, denounce, etc.--so IDing behaviors, actions, etc. is important and has to happen first and then deciding if acceptable, etc. (that should take no time, if it does, then the grey area has to be called out and corrected). I was at a Berkshire Hathaway stockholder meeting a few years back (2017?) and someone asked WEB about this very question (there was a scandal at the company) and he said that you can put stuff in place to prevent bad occurrences or rotten apples (but these things happen), and more important is the reaction by the leadership--investigate and correct. Ignoring is not a viable option.
Agreed, the reaction by leadership is super important. Same page about the third option, that the leader doesn't think it's a problem/doesn't really care, I covered that in the blog :)
A leader needs to know about problems (behaviors, actions, etc.) in order to accept, approve, condone, etc. or the opposite--reject, denounce, etc.--so IDing behaviors, actions, etc. is important and has to happen first and then deciding if acceptable, etc. (that should take no time, if it does, then the grey area has to be called out and corrected). I was at a Berkshire Hathaway stockholder meeting a few years back (2017?) and someone asked WEB about this very question (there was a scandal at the company) and he said that you can put stuff in place to prevent bad occurrences or rotten apples (but these things happen), and more important is the reaction by the leadership--investigate and correct. Ignoring is not a viable option.
cowardness is also not acceptable. I think the third interpretation is most likely--the leader does not see it as a problem. And that is a problem.
Agreed, the reaction by leadership is super important. Same page about the third option, that the leader doesn't think it's a problem/doesn't really care, I covered that in the blog :)