The consultant was relieved but not surprised about his employer's ongoing support. "They're familiar with the disease," he says. "They understand it. They understand the lies. And they understand how difficult it is to live with."
Still, it's not entirely clear that the managers made a wise decision, at least in the view of substance-abuse experts. "To put him through a treatment program is a very good thing, but once," says Dr. James W. West, vice-chairman and former medical director of the Betty Ford Center, an alcohol- and chemical-dependency treatment center in Rancho Mirage, Calif. "After that, it's enabling. It sends a message to the person: 'Well, just keep trying to the best of your ability, but if you fall, we're here, and we'll take care of it. In spite of what it does to the company, we'll stick with you. We'll put you back in treatment and hope this will be the last time, but if it isn't, we'll be there again.' It's bad for the company, and it's bad for the employee."
By answering their own need to feel good about themselves--and addressing their worst fears about what he might do--the managers could have been prolonging the consultant's suffering. He'd already been diagnosed with pancreatitis, which was, according to the consultant, "a direct result of excessive alcohol abuse." A relapse into drinking would have only worsened the condition.
Then again, it's practically second nature for entrepreneurs to ignore expert advice and abide by their own instincts. Typically, they're the ones who will suffer the harshest consequences if they turn out to be mistaken. But in a situation like this, the outcome could have a dire effect on an employee. That alone ought to change the decision-making process.
What doesn't change, though, is that a CEO's business mind-set will influence any decision. Even the best-hearted company builders can't help thinking of the tangible rewards that might result from any investment. This CEO admits as much when he refers to the consultant as "a lucky son of a bitch. We have one very loyal employee."
Yet no entrepreneur, after being hit where it hurts most, the bottom line, is likely to forget that trauma anytime soon. This CEO admits he'll never have as much trust in the employee as he did before. It's been nearly a year since the last incident and, says the CEO, "so far, so good. The problem is if he misses a plane or a plane's late, I'm always going to wonder." Rightfully so, perhaps. Months after the second incident, the employee, who is very candid about his struggle with alcoholism, still says he never missed work as a result, which doesn't bode well for his taking responsibility for his actions. "I wouldn't be surprised if something happened again," says the VP.
It's wise, then, to acknowledge up front whatever degree of self-interest guides your calculations--and to listen carefully to those who know more. This CEO, understandably, let his gut instincts lead the way. As a result, he never came to terms with whether he truly wanted to do something that would stand the greatest chance of helping the consultant in the long run, even if that meant taking on the guilt associated with giving the consultant his walking papers. This CEO is a good guy. It's not as if he sat down and calculated how to extract the most from the consultant in his time of need. There's a mix, however, of compassion and selfishness in his decision making that he didn't fully explore. "Business is easy compared to life," he says. "We're just laymen with good hearts and crossed fingers."
Well put. But even so, when faced with such a quandary, company leaders should ask themselves whether their actions are truly designed to help the employee and the company or if they're really just looking to get out of the situation feeling better about themselves. If the latter rings true, they should set aside their own needs.
Jeffrey L. Seglin is a visiting fellow at the Center for the Study of Values in Public Life at Harvard University.
(The following readers' comments appeared in a subsequent issue of Inc.)
Readers' debate
Did a CEO 'place the company's reputation in jeopardy' by helping a troubled employee?
The most recent Black and White column, "The Savior Complex" (February), argued that a CEO who had stepped in to aid an employee with a personal problem might have been motivated more by a desire to "feel better about himself" than he was by a sincere intent to help out. The CEO explained why he had sent an alcoholic employee for treatment--not once, but twice--despite the fact that the employee's failure to show up for work cost the $14-million company more than $100,000. In making his decision, the CEO admitted that he had sidestepped advice from people who were knowledgeable about substance abuse--namely, that the employee would have a better shot at recovery if he were fired. Readers agreed that CEOs must draw a line in such situations, but they didn't agree about where that line should be drawn.
"The CEO had a good heart, but at times the head must rule," wrote Yvette McManus, owner of Yvette's Designs in Sterling, in Lufkin, Tex. "He enabled the alcoholic with support and placed the company's reputation in jeopardy. No winners in that ball game."
Not that there wasn't something "noble and wise" in what the CEO did, as Dick Gray, president of Xtension Technologies, in Laguna Hills, Calif., put it. "But at some point," he added, "every executive must weigh the option of cutting loose an employee who can't adapt to a life without a crutch."
But where is that point? Peter Johnson, president of a technology-consulting firm in Bethesda, Md., believes that a business owner should "try to show a human touch, but not a hug." He admits, however, that making that distinction requires straddling another fine line. "I think of the shareholders, and I think of why the business exists, before spending its time and money on employee disasters. Never take one of these 'helping' campaigns off the business playing field and start helping the employee with your personal time or resources. That is not help."
Indeed, the CEO's mistake was in believing that he knew what would help, offers Stephan Cludts, a student at the Centre for Economics and Ethics at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. "It's possible to help one's employees, even if this has a cost," he says. But "the CEO should have taken advice from people who know how to deal with this kind of problem."
