Terminate in Haste, Regret at Leisure

Wow! It could only happen in Washington, D.C. I’m talking about the dismissal and, ultimately, attempted rehiring of Shirley Sherrod. You’ve likely heard the story by now, but it goes something like this.

Last week on Monday, conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart blogged about a speech given by Sherrod, a mid-level Department of Agriculture employee. He included video excerpts of a speech she had given in March to a local NAACP event.

The video showed Sherrod, the USDA’s director of rural development in Georgia, making comments about her reluctance to assist a white farmer because of his race. Sherrod, who is black, was quickly asked by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, to resign her post and did so by Wednesday.

As the full story came to light, however, it became clear that Sherrod’s comments were taken out of context. In fact, the story she told during her speech was about her hesitation to help the farmer decades ago, long before she joined the USDA. In her speech Ms. Sherrod had shared that after her initial reluctance; she had recognized her own prejudice and come to realize that “there is no difference between us.” Ultimately, she had helped the white farmer save his land, as he and his wife attested when they came to Sherrod’s defense.

Vilsack had condemned Sherrod wrongly. What to do?

To his credit Vilsack acknowledged that he “could have and should have done a better job” and expressed “profound regret” to Sherrod before offering her a new position with the USDA.

Then after the apology, Mr. Vilsack was admonished by his boss, President Obama, when the President said that Vilsack had “jumped the gun” when he asked for Sherrod’s resignation.

There must be a few lessons in here for all of us in management. How about these:

1. Make sure you have a thorough command of the facts before you take action. I’m sure Secretary Vilsack wanted to take immediate and decisive action to put this fire out quickly. The problem is he didn’t know all the facts and, instead of putting the fire out, threw gasoline on it and got burned.

Even when the case against a subordinate seems cut and dried, you must take the time to examine the situation thoroughly before you act. Had Vilsack or one of his people in the Department of Agriculture actually listened to Ms. Sherrod’s side of the story, this whole embarrassing episode could have been avoided. You cannot terminate (or ask for a resignation) from employees without giving them the opportunity to explain the situation from their perspective.

2. Quick and decisive action is a good thing — if you have all the facts. An immediate message from Vilsack saying that the matter was being looked at and appropriate action would be taken once all the facts were known would have been the prudent thing to do. He could have made it clear that he and the USDA were not ignoring the situation and that they would act once they had the full story. It’s public relations 101!

But instead, he obviously was feeling the heat and moved too quickly. No one would fault him for taking his time as long as he ultimately made the right decision. But you’ll pay the price for reacting in haste and making the wrong decision — as he found out.

3. If you screw up, apologize. Vilsack had the sense and decency to apologize publicly to Ms. Sherrod. For that, he should be commended. He made a big mistake and owned up to it when he said he “could have and should have done a better job” and expressed “profound regret” to Sherrod. He can’t undo the embarrassment he caused Ms. Sherrod, but at least he was willing to admit he’d made a mistake and offer an apology.

4. If you’re the boss, you don’t need to publicly embarrass a subordinate. I’m not talking about Vilsack here, but our President. Vilsack screwed up, recognized his mistake, and apologized for it. Still, his boss decided to publicly criticize him when he stated that Vilsack “jumped the gun” and that “[w]e have to take our time and think these issues through.”

Of course, the President was right. Vilsack did jump the gun and should have taken his time to think it through before he acted. I just don’t think the President needed to say so publicly, after the fact. Vilsack had already admitted as much and apologized for it. So making the statement about it publicly only served to embarrass Vilsack further because, obviously, he had already learned his lesson.

I must admit that the rules are different in Washington than they are for the rest of us. The media scrutiny they received is 1,000 times what it would be for the typical manager. Yet, had Mr. Vilsack reacted as all of us know we should when faced with a similar situation, he could have saved himself a lot of embarrassment and Ms. Sherrod the public humiliation she experienced before she was vindicated.