A few days ago Miki sent me an article about Tanium giving prospective customers a look into their client hospital’s live network, but without permission or protecting the identity of the hospital completely.

I wrote her back today as follows.

I had not seen this on my own, but I have been reading about the company for a few days now.

Coming from the medtech industry and security specifically I will say this.

The fact that he and his company used live hospital data without their consent will be a deathblow to them.

Hospitals take this very seriously because they are the ones who are held responsible by the Office for Civil Rights under Health and Human Services.

The hospital will be shown to have a vulnerability and will be forced to pay fines, lose out on government funds and potentially face sanctions. 

As a result the rest of the healthcare industry will treat Tanium like a pariah because they will not want to face repercussions.

Regardless of the industry it’s shocking to see how folks think it’s ok to manipulate or abuse customer relationships for their own profit, it always ends badly.  

Miki responded.

Sadly, I think they will find a way to smooth it over. Google, Facebook, etc sell customer data all the time. It’s how so many make their money and no one seems to care.

I know HIPPA is supposed to prevent this stuff, but I’m sure companies are getting around that, too, they just haven’t been caught, yet.

That’s the key, not being caught.

Every company that is caught, or just challenged, cries that they take their customer’s privacy seriously or that that’s not what their culture stands for, etc.

But only when they are caught.
I sincerely hope you are correct and that Tanium takes a major blow and, more importantly, that the CEO is forced out, but I’m not holding my breath. I guess I’ve finally gotten pretty cynical about this stuff.

So now I’m trying to decide if Miki’s cynicism is warranted or if I’m right and the publicized results of Tanium’s actions will have the effect they should.

I’ll keep you informed as there are more developments.

Image credit: Wikipedia

It’s amazing to me, but looking back over nearly a decade of writing I find posts that still impress and with information that is as useful now as when it was written. Golden Oldies is a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time.

Compromise Means Listening (2008)

Jim Stroup at Managing Leadership wrote a fascinating post on the effects of principles and political compromise on our Constitution.

For the political slant click the link, but I think that these ideas are just as true in the business world.

“If you rule out compromising your principles, then you become an ideologue.”

Can business people be ideologues? Of course.

Managers adopt approaches and then rigidly try to implement (inflict?) them on every organization in which they work with no consideration as to their appropriateness.

Robert Nardelli did that when he tried to impose stringent metrics a la GE on Home Depot, ignoring cultural differences and the realities of running a successful consumer business.

“…maybe they see a higher, joint goal of sufficient value… This sometimes takes a kind of discipline, stamina, and focus that can be stunning, and much more productive, powerful, and enduring…”

When senior managers open themselves up to input from all levels of their organization—instead of forcing the dogmatic use a certain methodology—the results include stronger engagement, higher productivity and more innovation.

In business, this means a focus beyond today’s stock price—a focus on the long-term, which is rarely appreciated by Wall Street.

Compromise isn’t synonymous with ethical lapse, either; it’s not an excuse to lie, cheat, steal or fudge the information or the numbers.

It is about listening to others; listening to those whose ideas are revolutionary; ideas that are atypical; ideas that buck the norm and go in a new direction and that takes a lot of guts.

In business, as in politics, compromise often means being willing to put your job on the line—but refusing carries the same potential cost.

Flickr image credit: Scott Maxwell

Startups, and those who love to work in them, operate on the same premise—what you see is what you get—from the beginning.

The beginning starts not on the first day of work, but from the moment they first connect.

Candidates expect the company to reflect its products and its reputation, as well as the hiring manager’s.

Those hiring expect candidates to reflect their resume and reputation.

In practice, that means the person who reports to work is the same person who interviewed, i.e., the same attitude and interests they had when interviewed and hired.

If a different attitude walks through the door on start day it must be addressed immediately.

If the start-day attitude turns out to be the candidate’s true colors, but doesn’t match the company’s culture it is best to face the hiring error sooner, rather than later when the damage is already done.

By the same token, if those hiring presented a scenario of fairness, a strong team, intolerance for politics and the opportunity to make a difference, then that is what the candidate expects.

If the founder or manager presented herself as a motivator, innovator, team-builder, mentor-type during the interview that is what the candidate expects.

If the company’s or managers’ true colors are different from those presented during the interviews then, not matter how hot your startup, don’t be surprised when your new hires walk.

Flickr image credit: Marc Lane

In an article focused on meetings and importance of being direct Tony Tjan, CEO and Managing Partner of The Cue Ball Group, says, “When we avoid conflict or try to skirt directness, it does a disservice to all involved, and often just plain wastes time.”

I’ve voiced similar thoughts about directness in posts about bad news and rumors (supported by some interesting CDC research).

It often seems that subtlety and so-called diplomacy is taking the place of direct, honest communications, which, especially in the workplace, is asking for trouble.

A lack of directness stems mainly from three very different sources.

1. Fear of confrontation: directness is often seen as a confrontational act that may create disagreement unlike subtlety and hints that can be misconstrued.

2. Confusion/lack of clarity: not having a good grasp on what you want to communicate makes it impossible to be direct.

3. Laziness: it is far easier to talk about, around, over and under the subject than it is to sort it out and plan how to best communicate it.

Another misconception is that being direct means being rude.

It doesn’t.

Rudeness is as much a function of presentation as it is of wording.

It’s simple to clean up wording; sanitizing non-verbal communications takes a bit more effort.

It means eliminating negative or demeaning body language (like sighs and eye-rolls) and focusing on displaying respect for those to whom you are speaking.

It may even require an adjustment to your MAP, but the pay-off is worth it.

Less confusion, less disagreement, less acrimony; increased trust and improved productivity and creativity are just a few of the benefits of clear, direct communications.

Flickr image credit: haven’t the slightest

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here

Do you dream of following in the footsteps of Mark Zukerberg and Reid Hoffman?

Will you follow their path blindly or seek to avoid their errors?

Do you plan to treat your customers/community with respect and be transparent in your dealings with them?

Facebook’s oft-changing and opaque privacy policy in the name of “better customer experience” has brought howls of rage and government scrutiny from around the world.

Now it seems that LinkedIn is following suite.

Apparently, LinkedIn has recently done us the “favor” of having a default setting whereby our names and photos can be used for third-party advertising.

As you might guess, LinkedIn’s action isn’t engendering a lot of love.

Google, too, is getting hammered in the name of privacy for some of its actions.

Opaque processes have long been the bane of customers, but they’re usually attributed to “bad” corporations as opposed to “good” startups.

Which begs the question: at what point does a company cross the line?

And which side of the line will you be on when your company succeeds?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For those of you who want to opt out of LinkedIn’s “favor” I’m including a screen to show you where, as well as exactly what it says. I think it’s a bit clearer than the one shown at the link above.

Hat tip to Dennis D. McDonald via LinkedIn Bloggers for the heads-up.

Option Sanity™ is transparent.
Come visit Option Sanity for an easy-to-understand, simple-to-implement stock process.  It’s so easy a CEO can do it.

Warning.
Do not attempt to use Option Sanity™ without a strong commitment to business planning, financial controls, honesty, ethics, and “doing the right thing.” Use only as directed.Users of Option Sanity may experience sudden increases in team cohesion and worker satisfaction. In cases where team productivity, retention and company success is greater than typical, expect media interest and invitations as keynote speaker.

Image credit: Bun in a Can Productions

My apologies if there has been too much politics lately, but you have to admit it’s difficult to avoid when so much of it is tied to “leadership” issues.

Or the lack thereof.

I rarely read op-ed pieces, but the title caught my, Awful, Awfuler, Awfulest; wouldn’t you click on that?

The author, Gail Collins, had written an article debating which state had the worst “leaders” running for election and chose Nevada as the winner.

Immediately, there were outcries from voters who believed their state had been unfairly overlooked on the dreadfulness meter.

Maine has a candidate for governor whose wife and kids live in their “primary residence” in Florida (the the other house is in Maine); Missouri has honors as the state with the least variety, 26 different candidates since 1980 from just two families; Florida has the dubious honor of a gubernatorial candidate whose company was fined $1.7 billion for fraudulent Medicare billing.

She says that in Net York’s race one candidate seems to tie every issue to his opponent’s sex life, while the main opponent doesn’t talk at all and a minor one is a self-proclaimed madam.

Nevada still won and you’ll have to click the link to learn why. (Hint: One of the candidates claims that Dearborn, Mich., and Frankford, Texas (a ghost town) are governed under Sharia, which is Islamic law.)  And take a moment to read some of the 229 comments for more hilarious examples and observations.

Why do we continue to accept acts from those in public service that we would condemn in other circumstances?

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/avlxyz/1807572441/

Have you ever tried to quash a rumor or disabuse a friend about a cultural or political myth?

An article detailing fascinating new research shines a light on why it’s so difficult—and why it’s better not to try.

“The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently issued a flier to combat myths about the flu vaccine. It recited various commonly held views and labeled them either “true” or “false.” Among those identified as false were statements such as “The side effects are worse than the flu” and “Only older people need flu vaccine.”

When University of Michigan social psychologist Norbert Schwarz had volunteers read the CDC flier, however, he found that within 30 minutes, older people misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true. Three days later, they remembered 40 percent of the myths as factual.

Younger people did better at first, but three days later they made as many errors as older people did after 30 minutes. Most troubling was that people of all ages now felt that the source of their false beliefs was the respected CDC.”

Rumors/myths in the workplace sap productivity, destroy morale, send attrition rates skyrocketing and make it more difficult to attract new talent. They can damage individuals, hurt your stock or scare off investors.

Whether you lead/manage/run a company/department/team this is disquieting information. 40% is not an insignificant number, it’s a number that needs to be addressed.

But there seems to be little that you can do.

“Ruth Mayo, a cognitive social psychologist found that rather than deny a false claim, it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth…The psychologist acknowledged that such a statement might not be entirely accurate — issuing a denial or keeping silent are sometimes the only real options.

So is silence the best way to deal with myths? Unfortunately, the answer to that question also seems to be no.

Another recent study found that when accusations or assertions are met with silence, they are more likely to feel true, said Peter Kim, an organizational psychologist at the University of Southern California.”

Not encouraging.

In business, one thing you can do is stop rumors before they start by using extremely open communications.

Don’t duck, don’t play word games and never lie, tell your people what’s going on—before they read it on the Net