Can You Accept Intimidation or Live with Integrity?

The other evening, I had the opportunity to hear two lawyers testify to members of the House of Representatives about why they resigned from their government jobs and then from their respective law firms because they could not accept the decisions their bosses posed to them. Their integrity was at issue, and it reminded me of the one time I had a similar situation and had to decide whether I would accept the intimidation I was confronted with or accept the penalty that was associated with keeping my integrity.

In 1979, I started my own business consulting on payment systems. In 1981, the Atlanta Fed published a nationwide study on check processing. It was a big deal for the industry, for it estimated the number of checks written in the U.S. in 1979, a number that was elusive to get. Also that year, I hired Jeffrey Kutler, an excellent writer for the American Banker, to begin a new magazine called Transition: the Journal of Financial Service Strategy.

For the first Issue, Jeffrey flew down from New York to Atlanta to interview several of the staff at the Atlanta Fed about their study. That story was to become the cover story for the first issue of Transition, and it was entitled, “Check Volume Growth … Whose Number is Right?” Out of courtesy, Jeff sent a draft of his article to the Atlanta Fed, and Bill Ford, then President of the Atlanta Fed, blew his stack when he read the draft. He called me on the phone and told me in no uncertain terms that the article could not be published because it maligned the Fed.

Get The AJT Newsletter by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

Jeff told me that there was nothing wrong with what he wrote, that Ford had gone beyond the data in 1979, and that he stuck his neck out in making speculative projections of check volumes for the next decade when the survey was not designed for this. The survey was only designed for the 1979 period. Nothing in the survey suggested anything about future check volumes, yet Ford insisted on doing that, and it upset the staff at the Atlanta Fed. I concluded that the real issue was that Jeff was questioning Ford’s speculation of the number of checks to be written in future years.

I called Ford back and told him that I reviewed the article, and I would not change it. He then insisted on seeing me in my office. Here I was, a small start-up company, and the President of the Atlanta Fed was coming to my office to insist on meddling with the press. In my office, Ford pushed me hard. He insisted that I either change the article or delete the story completely. I had to decide to either support my new editor or cave in to the Fed’s demand. I had decided before Ford arrived that I was dealing with freedom of the press, that ethics outweighed whatever relationship I had with Ford and the Atlanta Fed. I told Ford that the article was truthful, that freedom of the press was at issue, and I would not overrule my editor.

Ford stormed out of my office and saw to it that I was persona non grata at the Atlanta Fed so long as he was president. I did not receive a lick of work from the Atlanta Fed for years until Ford finally resigned and moved on. I think it was one of my finest hours. I put ethics ahead of business.

Twenty years later in 2001, I had a chance to compete against other consulting firms to accurately measure the number of checks in the U.S. for the Fed. My company won that contract, the largest contract in the history of my company, and at that time no one knew anything about the private confrontation I had with Ford two decades earlier.

For many in the government or in business, if you want my advice, and I know you didn’t ask for it, in choosing between acting in the best interest of your job or acting ethically, choose ethics. You’ll sleep better at night.