Harvard Business Publishing

Very insightful. This is a theme I've noticed a lot.

I'm sure it contributes to China and soon others surpassing the United States. They still are able to cooperate. We sue the pants off each other.

Yes! The corollary to a moralistic culture based on surveillance is the decline of an honor-based culture founded on ethics. Honor is about carrying out one's public roles with appropriate dignity and capability. Ethics are the habits and virtues of life that enable us to live among others with fine responsiveness. Morality tends to be about conforming passions to principles; combined with surveillance it produces deeply inhumane expectations of human beings with the result that hypocrisy, cruelty, and pandering become endemic.

Everything could be much simple if human himself had conscience on carrying out his tasks as much ethically as possible. The panopticon "sentiment of an invisible omniscience" could be well represented by guard men wearing sunglasses while observing multitudes at events. The principle of watching others create counter reaction that only deepens the whole matter and as the human mind is creative for nature...a lot more "inner" panopticons will be created...

These are examples of the "lynch him" approach. A good organization should create a support culture from top to bottom. People today feel they need to say something. They should speak when they have positive/relevent words to contribute!

Reading some of the comments reminds me that some people have a guilty conscience. That's why I tell people to be careful what they say -- you never know who may be listening.

If there is nothing to hide then I could care less who is listening.

Additionally, do I need to remind everyone of the obvious. When you read of a high-level person (almost weekly) being arrested for pornography related reasons, it's time to wake up and take action. The honor system has long passed us by. It's sad, but the reality of it all is that controls must be incorporated. Otherwise, to turn our cheek the otherway makes us guilty of being an enabler.

Michael,

I definitely agree with the perspective you've laid out. You can add to it ... first companies started checking postings on the Internet by prospective employees (Should I be writing this? Will someone somewhere hold it against me?). Now, colleges are doing the same for prospective student applicants (Isn't teenage a time when most people make mistakes -- and expect these not to haunt them forever?). I could go on for a while, citing even more bizarre stories ...

However, my question is: is this a generational issue? Will the current generation, born in a world of no privacy, have a different perspective on John Browne et al. than we do? Or will they become more circumspect as they grow older and get into positions of power themselves? I honestly don't know the answer. Yet my future -- and yours -- depends on it.

Michael, thanks for the interesting article. I believe that leaders are given their fair amount of scrutiny. The reason being is that leaders do not get to be leaders on their own. Their followers give them their platform (i.e., voters, TV/radio audiences, employees, parents, customers, etc.) and therefore, leaders have a responsibility to lead their followers to a desired place in fairness and respect. Leaders must also be measured by their results. How else will we know their effectiveness? The mere title of leader makes one vulnerable to scrutiny.

Leadership is demonstrated not only in what a person says, but also in what a person does. What is in the heart comes out in words and deeds. Leaders have an incredible influence on follower behavior and therefore, have a responsibility to do what is ethical and moral lest they lead followers astray. Further, followers have a right to voice the character flaws of their leaders.

Perhaps if more leaders embraced Godly principles in their business practices, they would be more apt to admit their wrongs, sincerely apologize and change their behavior before it spirals out of control. The Bible reveals that "without vision, people will perish" and "bad seeds produce bad seeds." Perhaps there is a need for leaders to re-think the leader they want to portray to their followers if scrutiny is too much to handle.

Please, stopo this nonsense. Our poor leaders being observed? Let us begin with a question: Why is someone called a leader? This may seem obvious, but at this point when the "leaders" in supposedly liberal school systems are opting for surveillance cameras in high schools we can't feel too sorry for them if citizens start poking around to see just how many times they've played golf with vendors of this equipment. If one takes on the title "leader" there must be some expectation that not everyone will willingly follow the program. It's silly to expect that a leader's actions would not be subject to public scrutiny if not ridicule. Lulu