Another reputation ruined by stupidity

Yesterday, Montana’s chief federal judge, Richard Cebull, admitted forwarding a racist email to six "old buddies" about President Obama. He sent the email from his court account, not from home or even a personal account.

The email included several racist jokes along with the judge's personal message to his buddies. “Normally I don’t send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine,” Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull wrote before forwarding the email. (SOURCE: Los Angeles Times)

The judge admits the jokes are racists but claims he sent them not as a racist but because he dislikes Obama.

Politics aside...racism aside...just how stupid is that judge to think it is prudent to send an email like that? Just how stupid is he to attach his name to that kind of email, especially since he admitted knowing it could offend people. Sure, he never intended the email to become public, but that's the point: you should ALWAYS assume emails could become public.

Email has been around for 20 years! Warnings about emails being forwarded to recipients beyond those you intend have been around 20 years! How many more reputations will be ruined by the stupid assumption that no one else will see one?

Being stupid enough to assume emails are private is one thing, but perhaps it just reveals the real issue: poor character.

My question for you to ponder: if a top judge is stupid enough to assume emails are private, are you? Or, are the top leaders of your company? Judge Cebull's stupidity serves as a good reminder to us all, which might prevent another reputation from being ruined by stupidity.

(Information for this post was taken from the Los Angeles Times article, Montana judge admits sending racist email about Obama, posted by Kim Murphy February 29, 2012, 9:06 p.m.)

Proof that good things happen to good people

Marine Cpl. Alexander Degenhardt attributes his luck to karma. 

Five years ago Marine Cpl. Alexander Degenhardt registered to be a bone marrow donation, and he was identified as a match just prior to going to Las Vegas last week. While he was in Vegas for the first time, Cpl. Degenhardt hit a $2.8 million jackpot at the Belagio.

When asked what he will do now, Cpl. Degenhardt said he will stay in the military, live off his paycheck, and invest the jackpot winnings. He also said he will donate the bone marrow, as planned. Karma, indeed.

Value-Added is Over-Rated

At some point, you have to commit to a standard of excellence. Whether it is high or low, if you are a business owner, leader, or developer, you must pick a level. Proclaiming high quality standards when price and execution reveal the opposite confuses customers and will inhibit sales.

Some business owners try to get around the common incongruence by offering basic services with value-added options; however, that's confusing too. It's like those old infomercials when the pitchman would add in all kinds of items just to make a sale. Can't you hear it now? "For $19.95 a set of Ginsu knives!"

Value-added has become trite and meaningless.

It would be better to do what you do, obviously assuming you know your clients well enough to know what they need, and offer options without claiming some have more value than others. If the base package meets a basic need, fine. Set a price for it. If base plus additional services meets a greater need, find. Set a price for that too.

For example, as a professional speaker, there is a rate to book me for a keynote or general session. If the conference attendees would benefit from a keynote and a breakout, or a keynote and an emcee, or a keynote, breakout, and follow-up series, there are prices for those. However, the services beyond the keynote are not value-added. They are customized to meet the clients' needs, not an indication of value. If a conference simply needs a keynote, they get a high-value keynote.

 Adding for the sake of trying to hit on something that attracts clients diminishes the value of the service offered. Value-added lost its luster within the last few years. Just provide high value and whatever you do, and you won't have to sound like the infomercial pitchman screeching, "But wait! There's more!"

Talent > Flash at the Grammys and in Workplaces

Talent is more important than flash. That was one of the messages delivered loud and clear at this year's Grammy Awards.

It was delivered by six-time winner Adele, who wore a simple black dress as she accepted three awards in which Lady Gaga was a competitor. Lady Gaga wore a dominatrix costume and carried a scepter.  Adele was queen of the night and wore a simple black dress. Talent won over flash.

A second example was Foo Fighters front man Dave Grohl, who said the following when speaking on behalf of the band who won for Best Rock Album:  “For me this award means a lot because it shows that the human element of making rock is the most important. Singing into a microphone and learning to play an instrument and learning your craft is the most important thing for people to do...It’s not about what goes on in a computer. It’s about what goes on in (your heart) and what goes on in (your head.)” It is not about a computer altering your voice so it sounds perfect, it is about having enough talent without the voice needing alterations. Talent wins over computer-generated perfection.

A third example is the singer who wore a red devilish cape while walking the red carpet with a fake "pope". Putting aside how offensive that is to Catholics, the fact is, she was a joke. No one talked about her the next day as cutting-edge or a great artist. The same person performed, and her performance was considered droll. Obviously, she set out to be the most flamboyant person at the Grammys and to steal the show. But, no one was talking about her the next day. In fact, no one will be talking about her in a year or two, unless she becomes a criminal of some kind. The next day, that singer was a barely mentioned joke, while Adele was celebrated for her voice. Adele's performance won rave reviews.

Talent wins again.

In the workplace, it can be tempting to put on airs, but, remember, talent is more important. Walk is more important than talk in workplaces today.

You can carry a proverbial scepter around the office and act like you are more important than everyone else, but  if you have real talent, you won't need to. You won't need to put others down, copy someone else's act, or ride someone else's coattails. Work hard, work smart, and work well with others, and your talent will enable you to rise above the flashier people who simply talk about work. Talent wins over flash in the long run. As you build your reputation, keep Adele in mind. She didn't carry a scepter, attempt to offend millions of people, or fake her way to the top. When you are truly talented, you won't need to either.

------------------------
UPDATE 2/15/12

The singer described in the third example above was on one of the morning shows today. She was on the show to promote a charitable campaign of some kind (I didn't get the name of it), and she was friendly, well-spoken, and informed about the issue. She also was very sweet to a young singer who was on the show after her segment. She made me wish she had not made a joke of herself at the Grammys because she has a perspective worth sharing but ruined her chances (with some people, not all) by making her talent secondary.

Now, this question: when people resort to flash over talent (fluff over stuff), is that a form of self-sabotage? What do you think?