Legendary college football coach Joe Paterno died recently after a battle with lung cancer. But by many accounts, some people who knew him well say the 85-year-old died of a broken heart. I think Joe Paterno’s career at Penn State University is worth closer examination because there are lessons for employers and employees alike, says business and leadership blogger Dan Oswald.
Oswald, who is CEO of BLR, offered his thoughts on the passing of Joe Paterno in a recent edition of The Oswald Letter.
Joe Paterno spent his entire career at Penn State University, coming to the school as an assistant coach in 1950. That’s not a typo—1950. That’s 62 years ago. I’d be willing to wager that only a small minority of those reading this were working full-time in 1950. After 15 years as an assistant, Paterno was named head coach in 1966—the same year I was born. And he spent the next 46 years winning football games and impacting the lives of young men. In that span he chalked up 409 wins, more than any coach in NCAA football history.
But Paterno was also known for promoting a balance between collegiate academics and athletics. His players graduated at a rate of 74 percent—19 points above the national average. And Paterno was never accused of any NCAA rules violations. What’s more, he and his wife donated more than $4 million to the university for scholarships and to build a library on campus. In a world of college athletics where so much is wrong, Paterno was seen as a man who did things right.
Yes, you do have the budget and time to train managers and supervisors with BLR’s® 10-Minute HR Trainer. Try it at no cost or risk. Get details.
That is until long-time Paterno assistant Jerry Sandusky was arrested and charged with 40 counts of child sexual abuse. The abuse allegedly took place over a 15-year period, some of it in Penn State athletic facilities. One incident in 2002, in which a football graduate assistant allegedly walked in on Sandusky assaulting a young boy in the showers of the football building, became Paterno’s undoing.
According to grand jury testimony, the graduate assistant told Paterno what he had seen. Paterno insisted that he was told only of “inappropriate behavior” and that he notified campus officials who should deal with it.
In light of the scandal involving Paterno’s former long-time assistant and believing that he had not done enough, Penn State’s Board of Regents fired the coach with a phone call. Of the entire Sandusky incident, Paterno said, “It is one of the great sorrows of my life. I wish I had done more.”
It’s a tragic story. But there are lessons about loyalty in it from which we can all learn.
Loyalty and longevity are great, but you must be aware of the potential downside. Paterno spent 61 years at one institution building a great reputation and a cult-like following. His immense popularity with Penn State alumni and fans gave him an incredible amount of power.
Paterno was that employee who is so valuable and popular that management begins to believe he is “untouchable.” In many ways, his actions go unchecked until there’s a problem and then management finds it difficult to act fearing the repercussions. Much of the problem in this situation was that Joe Paterno became bigger than Penn State, and that just can’t happen. No employee can be bigger than the institution.
Loyalty can be blind. I don’t know what Joe Paterno knew about Jerry Sandusky’s alleged actions, but it certainly appears that he knew something and didn’t do enough about it. He admitted that when he said, “I wish I had done more.” Paterno and Sandusky spent 15 years together. Sometimes it’s hard to believe that someone close to you is capable of doing bad things. Maybe it’s because you see the good they do or maybe it’s because admitting it would mean you failed to be a good judge of character, but managers must be vigilant about assessing those who work for them and not ignore the signs of problems. Paterno did, and it cost him his job and, in many ways, his reputation.
Loyalty can make for hard decisions, but you need to handle them the right way. The Penn State Board of Regents fired Joe Paterno, a decision that many thought was the right thing to do. I’m sure it wasn’t an easy decision to make about a man who had done so much for the university. But they did it with a phone call. Sixty-one years of dedication to one institution and they don’t have the courtesy to meet with him face to face.
Again, I don’t know the facts surrounding the firing, but it appears to be a very cowardly way to end a relationship that lasted as long as this one had.
Joe Paterno dedicated his life to Penn State University, and his dedication and loyalty may have cost him his life. Less than three months after being fired by the university, Paterno died—many of those close to him said he died of a broken heart. Loyalty to an organization and loyalty to an employee are both wonderful, admirable things, but left unchecked they can lead to problems all too apparent in the relationship between Paterno, Sandusky, and Penn State University.
It’s certainly worth sharing this perspective with managers, supervisors, and executives–especially in traditionally hierarchical (and dare I say patriarchal?) settings. Loyalty can have real costs.
This tip is great learning tool under TODAY’S society. My feelings are that Mr Paterno did everything by the book in accordance to what Penn State administration dictated 10 years ago. He did report the incident to his proper authority at that time. Unfortunately, he is being judged under today’s standards which is not fair to him or any others innocently involved in this situation. This is a great example on how things change over a period of time and Mr Paterno is being judged on today’s morals and not those of 10 years ago.
I am getting tired of the focus on Paterno in the Sandusky allegations. I agree that there is an HR lesson to be learned here, but it doesn’t lie with Paterno, it lies with Curly and Shultz.
It actually appears that Paterno is the only one that DID anything, Joe reported the matter to his immediate superior, Athletic Director Tim Curley, as directed by University policy. Joe also saw to the involvement of Gary Schultz, the University administrator with oversight of the Campus Police (above and beyond University Policy).
Those are the individuals that did nothing. Also, it would be good to get your quotes correct before writing up the story. Here is the quote you are referring to:
“This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”
In your article you left out a key part of the quote: “With the benefit of hindsight”, and you don’t have an ellipsis in your quote to signify you were cutting anything out. The semantics are important here. “I should have done more” is an admission of guilt. “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more,” is simply expressing, “Now that I can look back and see what was really going on, I wish I had made different decisions.” That doesn’t mean that the decisions Joe made were unreasonable at the time given the amount of knowledge he had at the time.
So, as far as HR goes, what more should Joe Paterno have done in this situation? All things considered? Telling his boss, telling his bosses boss? What else should he have done? Remember that Pennsylvania is a Chain of Command state. The obvious answer is tell the Police, but that would have violated University Policy, is that what we should tell employees to do from our HR department?
When you work with someone in a certain capacity, other parts of their life can be unknown. It is quite possible for people to be very good at hiding things about themselves even from the people they are closest too.
Joe Paterno’s job was not to oversee the personal lives of his staff – it was to manage their performance on the job. Even when he was given information that something might be wrong, he turned it over to the people who were designated to investigate such things. It was not Joe’s job to determine the details and facts of the issue. It did not appear that he overtly tried to shield or protect his employee or obstruct any investigation.
To have taken such drastic action against him such as firing him was extreme and over-reactive. It was appropriate to take action against the two people who should have investigated the allegation and taken action on any evidence they uncovered including involving the police.
The staffer who witnessed the incident (his story has changed several times as to what exactly he saw) is the one who should have called police. If he did talk to the police and they did nothing – shame on them.
It is important when a serious event occurs and action is not properly taken that the reaction is predicated on facts – not emotion. Over-reaction does not serve to reinforce proper behavior in the next instance. It simply makes people less willing to get involved.
Part of the issue that keeps getting overlooked from the employer – employee stand point is that Sandusky was no longer an employee of Penn State when this 2002 incident was reported. I am sure that this was a limiting factor in what Joe Pa’s options were for dealing with the situation.
No matter the relationship, the manner of dismissal was appalling. He should have been called in, a face-to-face discussion held, and allowed to resign. Entirely apart from the circumstance which prompted it the public destruction of Paterno was desperately sad.
very well written article. i, personally, am a true “joe pa – lover” – both of my children graduated from penn state and, although never having been involved with the football program, looked up to joe. this situation had been very difficult for all involved. my first comment when joe was fired was, “he won’t last long.” little did we know. yes, in my heart i honestly believe joe didn’t intentionally do anything wrong, but he also didn’t do what was right. his loyal following was owed a higher degree of commitment and he knew that. highly respected upper management has a responsiblity to protect those around them who trust them blindly.
Your article – and all the articles like it – are despicable. Although I live in Pennsylvania, I don’t count myself as a rabid Penn State fan – but even I know that the firing of Joe Paterno was the act of a cowardly, self-serving administration that sought only to cover their own rear ends.
For an organization with the words “Human Resources” in your name, I sense that you know little or nothing about college administration or, perhaps, most business organizations. Being the man that Joe Paterno was, I would expect him to wish “he had done more.” However, taking action on your own is not permitted in college administration and, in fact, in most businesses.
I do have experience in college administration here in Pennsylvania and numerous major corporations beyond that. All education institutions – and all businesses – have strict policies about employees contacting the press or outside “authorities.” There exists a clearly defined “chain of command” in all these organizations – and God help the person that oversteps their bounds.
What exactly would you have had Joe do. One or more terrible acts were committed by Jerry Sandusky over an extended period. Although the entire Sandusky timeline is way too big to recount here (and is well-documented in numerous public articles and the Grand Jury report), two things are quite clear. First, once events were reported to Joe Paterno, he did exactly what he was supposed to to – reported it to his superiors, starting with the Athletic Director to whom Paterno reported. Second, numerous other reports about Sandusky had been made to the authorities both before and after these allegations had been discovered by Joe Paterno.
This was clearly something that the administration should have taken care of a long time ago. Allegations go back to the mid 1990s. The entire upper levels of the Penn State Administration are clearly guilty of attempting to sweep this under the rug for a very long time. To make Joe Paterno the scapegoat when the roof publicly fell in on the University is abominable. The Athletic Director, probably a couple of Deans, the President, and the entire Board should be summarily hung out to dry for their part in covering this up for 15 years.
So, again, what was Joe Paterno to do? Call in the State Police? The FBI? Fire Sandusky without University approval? Any of the above actions would have brought harsh action against Paterno by the University and the possibility of major lawsuits brought by Sandusky himself had careful investigations not taken place.
Jow Paterno did exactly what he was supposed to do and what he was required to do. Joe Paterno IS Penn State and what those cowards in the Administration did to him is unforgivable. The witch hunt should now be expanded to include the rest of the Administration. Joe Paterno is just another victim of the nightmare called Jerry Sandusky.
The Penn State Trustees should be fired in similar fashion. Paterno notified his supervisors wich was his responsibility to do. The Trustees should have had the guts to accept Paterno’s resignation and let him finish the season. His service, contributions over time to the school, the players, the game and society as a role model deserved no less. Shame on Sandusky and shame on the Trustees. My heart goes out to the victims but the Paterno’s Supervisors were at fault not Joe. Paterno’s is still honored in the hearts of his many fans and admirers.
I concur with many other main points that Mr. Bruce commented on. Additionally, I certainly would like to highlight the point on how inappropriately the Board of Regents handled a man who committed his entire working career and life to that same institution. The approach was very poorly strategized and in many HR circles, highly unprofessional (a phone call). Despite the tone of the situation, they owed Mr. Paterno more humane treatment and dignity he so DESERVED. To release a man from employment who dedicated 61 years of his life to an institution most certainly deserved better. Perhaps he used poor judgement, perhaps he could have done more. We can all contemplate what was and what is. The matter with Sandusky is certainly a tragic one which will take years to address in the justice system and many more years in terms of victim support, outreach and assistance. I would like to hear from the PSU Office of Human Resources regarded the release of Paterno. Who authorized the strategy, the approach and why a phone call?
I work in HR for a public entity. I’m also a fan of another Big Ten school, but JoePa was about the only other Big Ten coach beside Kirk Ferentz that I truly admire. And he did exactly what he should have done. For all he knew, the alleged incident had been investigated. The investigation was not his responsibility. The admin wanted JoePa to retire – they used this incident to “retire” him since they had no other legitimate reason to require him to retire. It was so wrong in so many ways.
Thank you for your comment about the firing being done by phone and appearing cowardly. I come from Pa. and I for many the (by phone) added fuel to the demonstrations of the loyal followers of Paterno, not to mention the message to other employees of the Penn State faculty and the disrepect that administration projected. If an HR manager can take the time to interview an individual face to face than there is no excuse to not terminate face to face. How do we feel when an employee calls us to say they found a better job and are faxing a resignation letter effective immediately? We are suppose to set the professional bar higher. If you have to terminate at least do it with class and dignity. It is not the employee but your reputation that will stand strong in the community you deal with and hire from.
No, I believe that Paterno did not deserve a humane treatment despite his stellar accomplishments. He demonstrated a reckless behavior by not protecting his student athletes. As powerful as he was, he would have stopped the abuse, instead of only reporting the incident to his superiors, and allowing it to continue on for years.
Penn State had every right to separate their organization as quickly as possible from these monsters.
It would be interesting to see if your perspective would change if your child was abused.
Also, as an HR professional, what would you do if you were in a similar situation?
1) The real HR lesson here is the blundering on the part of Penn State which would have allowed Mr.Paterno a wide open lawsuit for wrongful termination. Additionally, a possible libel suit. This may not be over, as his survivors might have a case, even implying that it contributed to his death.
2)It’s hard to think of a college student as a child being victimized. No offense intended, but someone old enough to choose a university, a course of study and a career ought to be considered capable of conducting their own affairs, particularly private matters such as sexual activity. (Presuming the student was not forcibly assaulted, which makes reporting the crime the student’s responsibility.)
3)Mr.Paterno fulfilled his responsibility to report the alleged incident (heresay) reported by a third party. Investigation into the incident and determination of its validity, as well as follow up after determination, are the responsibilities of law enforcement investigators. Under the circumstances, Mr.Paterno should NOT have done more, as he was not qualified to determine the validity of the report, nor its gravity, and to have done so would have been beyond his authority and purview.
@UnPaterned
You believe this is cut and dry because in retrospect the allegations are most likely true (but due process has not been fulfilled). But assume the opposite. You have an employee, who has a unsubstantiated claim from a 3rd party. He reports the issue to his superior and his superior’s superior.
Now, you expect him to also go to the police, outside the chain of command? Wouldn’t that qualify as harassment if the claims turn out to be false?
As an HR professional dealing with children it is mandatory in every organization that I have worked in to require every employee to attend (and sign that they attended)an annual refresher concerning child abuse. This training is conducted by the HR department. In my experience a statement like the following was conveyed and discussed, “All employees are required to immediately notify their superior AND the local police concerning any knowledge that they gain personally or otherwise regarding potential or actual child abuse. Failure to promptly report such information to your supervisor AND the police may result in disciplinary or legal action against you. What you report will be kept in confidence except as required by this organization and law enforcement”. I’m wondering where the Penn State HR department was concerning annual child abuse training. Had Mr. Paterno and his staff been given such training, each year by the Penn State HR department, the tragedy, likely would have totally been focused on the child abuser and not others, and perhaps much abuse prevented. Hopefully, Penn State will ensure that all staff receive appropriate and mandatory training concerning child abuse, at minimum, on an annual basis. This was clearly a failure by the Penn State HR department. Have they acknowledged their responsibility and failure?
I agree with most everyone about how the university Administration handled Mr. Paterno’s termination; apalling! However, I must be missing something. You mean to say that in the state of Pennsylvania, it is NOT okay to go directly to the police or other outside authorities when a crime has been committed??? John benJohn said that the college administrations and most business organizations he’s familiar with would not allow an employee to go to outside authorities in a situation such as this. Are you kidding me??? On what planet are these organizations? Or, is this a Pennsylvania thing? I have always, always, ALWAYS advised employees to contact the police if/when a situation crosses legal bounds, while we (HR & Management) investigate and address what we can internally as it relates to the workplace. Note to self: never move to PA!
And to Scott O’Connor, you referred to the victims as “college students”. These were NOT college students of legal age, they were minors visiting the campus as part of Sandusky’s youth group. Hence the crime!
This is a follow-up to the “UnPaterned” comments:
Sadly, it’s responses like yours – completely void of facts – that directly and indirectly support the appalling tactics used by the Trustees and Administration at Penn State.
You claim that “He [Paterno] demonstrated a reckless behavior by not protecting his student athletes.” The facts show that, by the time the graduate assistant calls Coach Joe Paterno on March 2, 2002, Sandusky had already been retired from Penn State for more than 2 1/2 years.
Furthermore, the accusations against Sandusky have consistently involved “young boys” that were part of outside programs (like Sandusky’s “Second Mile”) and had nothing to do with the “students” at Penn State. Regarding the incident that Joe Paterno was involved with, Tim Curley (Penn State Athletic Director), Gary Schultz (Senior Vice President for Finance and Business), and the management of the Second Mile program, were all notified immediately by Paterno and the graduate assistant.
Subsequent to this event, all the alleged Sandusky problems occurred outside of Penn State programs – including even Sandusky’s home. What “continued on for years” (in your estimation) was completely outside Joe Paterno’s reach.
A year before Paterno was even aware of issues with Sandusky, the State College Police Department was already investigating Sandusky for alleged child abuse “in the showers” with young boys in the Second Mile program that he (Sandusky) founded.
You also throw in that “what would you do if your child were abused?” red herring. I guess you would destroy anybody just to satisfy yourself – even if the guilty parties managed to escape untouched. And, what would I do? There would be plenty of people in my cross-hairs – but Joe Paterno would NOT have been one of them. Unlike you, I do my homework and go after those actually responsible. I would also find out more about the oddly-missing HR Department in all of this.
There’s plenty of guilt to spread around here. There are clearly people – both before and after Joe Paterno’s direct involvement – who should pay dearly for the 15-year lack of action against Sandusky. But nothing you can say changes the fact that what the Trustees did to Joe Paterno was and is unconscionable.
Know what I think? I think Joe knew he was dying and, being the incredible person he was, I wouldn’t be surprised if he told Penn State to fire him so he could take the heat and protect the school. I think he was that great a man.
Of all people, I would think HR Professionals would understand what Joe Paterno did. All major organizations today have “Policy Manuals” and most if not all provide a procedure for alleged criminal behavior. My former company manual said “Only HR or Corporate Counsel may notify the police or communicate with the police about alleged criminal behavior unless that behavior is a clear and immediate threat to fellow employees”. The penalty was grounds for dismisal.
Jerry Sandusky was NOT an employee of PSU in 2002 but because the alleged crime ocurred on PSY property, Joe Paterno followed PSU procedue by notifying his immediate superior and subsequently the head of the Penn State Campus Police and Legal Department. And don’t forget, Joe did not witness anything. All he had was hearsay and as it came out in the Curley/Schultz hearing a sanitized, whie washed version at that. Joe asked the people in charge to take care of it and they said he would. We don’t know, and now we will never know if the PSU legal people told Joe to stay out of it, they would take it from there.
Subsequently, the President of the University was informed and he and the chief legal counsel informed the Board of Trustees. What more could Joe Paterno have done, loyal employee or not? Gone over the head of his immediate superiors, the President of the University and The Board of Trustees by making it public? There was absolutely nothing more he could have done or should have done in terms of reporting it to law enforcement. The Penn State Campus Police have all of the powers of a municipal police force in Pennsylvania. They have sole jurisdiction for the campus and a 500 foot radius around the campus. If Joe had reported what he had been told to the State College Police, they would have kicked it right back to to campus police which is who Joe reported it to in the first place.
The tragedy of the whole situation is Joe Paterno should never have been involved in the Sandusky situation in the first place. If Mike McQueary had called the police while the alleged attack was going on, instead of waiting and calling a football coach, Joe Paterno would not have been a part of the story at all.
The only reminder to this sad story is that when something goes wrong. All those close to the situation, guilty and innocent, go through a living hell. While our justice system assure a party is innocent until proven guilty at trial, but during the investigation–everyone is guilty until proven innocent. These situations are only worsened by our ending desire to know and analyze every fact and assert opinions by overzealous TV gossips who pretend to be newsreporters. God Bless Joe Paterno and his family.
Best way I’ve heard it put: He died a legend, but could have been a hero.
@Latees
According to Wendy Murphy – a leading victim’s rights advocate and nationally recognized television legal analyst — in Pennsylvania “the law is explicit that employees need not report directly to outside authorities and can satisfy their reporting obligations by reporting only to a supervisor.” But she adds, in “chain of command” states, employees who report directly to outside law enforcement and child protection service agencies face employment sanctions, including termination, for reporting outside the chain of command.” [Wendy J. Murphy: “Prosecute Penn State for ‘chain of command’ cover-up,” The Patriot Ledger Nov. 14, 2011] Although it is hard to believe that Penn State might sanction someone for reporting outside the chain of command, the very same law that requires reporting also contains provisions for redress in the event an institution sanctions someone for issuing an unauthorized report.
This is a follow-up to “Latees:”
Latees apparently questions “where on the planet I’ve worked” to understand education and corporate policies. As a computer industry consultant for more than 40 years, here’s a partial list of where on the planet I’ve worked: the National Security Agency, the Office of Naval Intelligence, NASA, US Army, US Navy, US Marines, Bell Labs, AT&T, Lucent Technologies, IDEXX Labs, Joy Mining, Royal Bank of Canada, NATO, EA Bank, Bank Leumi, Bank Hapoalim, Merrill Lynch, John Hancock, Jefferson Life, Everest Re, Merck, Phillips, Motorola, Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Telecom, Italtel, SAIC, Ameritech, American Cyanamid, Bucks County Community College, and Centenary College.
Being completely familiar with the Employee/Contractor Policies at each and every one of those companies (because I had to sign NDAs and had to be “trained” in their policies), I can say that NOT ONE OF THEM would permit anyone other than “authorized upper management” to contact outside any agencies (police, press, etc.). Doing so “could result in severe disciplinary action, including termination.” Employees and contractors are even taught what to say VERBATIM to any outside inquiries made of them – by phone, email, fax, text, in-person, etc.
Placing an institution in an awkward position at best, especially if allegations prove to be false, is not looked upon kindly. This is why the policies exist – to give a reasonable amount of time to investigate allegations before taking action. The problem with Penn State is that the “authorized upper management” did not follow up in a timely fashion to very serious allegations.
Joe Paterno was NOT the problem. The problem was the administration, the campus police – and maybe HR for all I know. It’s actually time to focus on the REAL criminals in this case instead of Joe Paterno.
If I owned or was running a company where my HR people were telling staff to contact outside agencies directly whenever they (the staff) thought something was wrong without going through proper channels (including, apparently, circumventing HR itself), I’d be very, very worried about major law suits heading my way.
And, regarding your “note to self” about never moving to Pennsylvania – thank you … our corporations will remain safe a little while longer from bad HR.
Like it or not.. Latees is correct. Limit your employees ability to address concerns, increase your liability.
@Esq
True, but that is exactly what these companies have done, the extensive training is spent at the management level, and so concerns need to be escalated to an authority who has the training to handle the situation.
In this case, that management seems to have failed to handle the situation, which WILL incur a huge liability for the University. If Curly / Shultz / Spanier / Board of Trustees had done their jobs, this wouldn’t be an issue. To say that it was the responsibility of Joe Paterno to report a watered down hearsay account to Police AFTER he reported it to Curly & Shultz is ridiculous.
@ John benJohn, thank you for the exhaustive list of your former employers. Your resume is impressive and I’m sure you perform very well in your role. However, while I understand your point of view, I stand by my comment; and I can do so without resorting to personal attacks as you have done in your comment regarding my “bad HR”. I did not question “where on the planet I’ve worked” as you tried to quote me to infer that I question YOU. I questioned these organizations and their practices. It’s these types of policies and practices that continue to provide fodder for scandal.
@latees
Really? Here’s your quote: “John benJohn said that the college administrations and most business organizations he’s familiar with would not allow an employee to go to outside authorities in a situation such as this. Are you kidding me??? On what planet are these organizations? Or, is this a Pennsylvania thing?”
The last three rhetorical questions are hard to misinterpret. You’re suggesting what? I lie? I don’t know what I’m talking about? The companies to which I referred don’t exist? I don’t have experience with HR policies? Your incredulity at HR policies in the rest of the world?
I don’t mean to imply that the acts that have been uncovered are not horrible, nor am I suggesting that, if found to be true, Jerry Sandusky shouldn’t be punished – severely. What I am suggesting is that ALL corporations have employee policies and, moreover, they are there for a reason. In fact, I suspect that the bulk of your activities in HR are centered on making sure that corporate policies are followed to the letter. And I’m also quite sure that, if an accusation or complaint is filed with your office, you both investigate and contact your superiors long before jumping on the phone to call in outside authorities.
The campus police were ALREADY investigating Sandusky. His own organization was ALREADY aware of his “issues.” Not just recently – but for years. Read the grand jury report. This is about making a scapegoat out of one of the last people through the door.
It’s not about whether someone shouldn’t be held accountable for the lack of timely response. It’s not about whether someone is responsible for Jerry Sandusky running loose for years. It’s about the fact that Joe Paterno is – but should not be – the scapegoat. We’re now spending the bulk of the time writing articles and blogging about the destruction of an incredible man instead of focusing on the real criminals in this case – starting with Jerry Sandusky and, apparently, the bulk of the upper administration at Penn State.
Oh, and with regard to your passive-aggressive “without resorting to personal attacks as you have done in your comment regarding my ‘bad HR'” – how does that fly with your: “Or, is this a Pennsylvania thing?” and “Note to self: never move to PA!” That’s right … poke the sleeping bear. By the way, you could certainly move to worse places than Pennsylvania.
Since the accused is Jerry Sandusky, the focus of article should be directly around what management’s respond was to the allegations and what management and employees should do in such situations to report such acts. The easy and eye-catching headline is to make the nationally known head coach the villain.
So we had an incident where an employee (McQueary) informed his supervisor (Paterno) of inappropriate conduct by an ex-employee of three years (Sandusky) of “horsing around” with a young child in the shower. The supervisor with hearsay knowledge notified his supervisor and the head of campus police, and the president of the university was then informed.
How should employees, supervisors, and senior management handle such situation in the work place? What is the role of internal security/ police. I was hoping to learn that point from reading this article, not one using Paterno’s name 23 times to get attention.
I agree with the sentiment about the “too important” to question/terminate/accuse/etc. It has a lot of practical crossover ion businesses big and small. However, as many good things as Paterno may have done in his life, I was angry when I saw his memorial and people were celebrating him and his life. If even one little boy was hurt because he failed to act, in my book that erases every good deed and all good intentions. There is no excuse. In my book, I hope he found repentance from his maker; because Lord knows if it was my kid, he wouldn’t have made it the three months he did.
Rest in Peace Joe….you did what you were required to do. Shame on the Board of Trustees and other school officials.
The author admits that he doesn’t know the facts and doesn’t know what Paterno knew or didn’t know about Sandusky’s illegal and clandestine activities, but then proceeds simply to assume that Paterno knew “something.” In fact, “loyalty” may have had absolutely nothing to do with Coach Paterno’s conduct if he knew nothing about Sandusky’s activities other than whatever McQueary told him. Accordingly, the “lesson” to be learned may not even apply to this situation. On the other hand, many of the commenters have noted that there are “corporate policies” requiring employees to report crimes only to their superiors at work and prohibiting employees from contacting the police directly, on pain of possible firing. I must point out, however, that the actual law, not corporate policy, the law, in many states says that if an employee is fired for reporting criminal conduct to the police, the employer can be sued for retaliatory discharge. I also find it hard to believe that any reasonable employer would fire someone for reporting child abuse directly to the police. I agree that Coach Paterno did everything he should have done, but it seems clear to me that he could have contacted the actual University PD, the State College PD, the State Police or the FBI without penalty had he chosen to do so.
After reading all the comments posted here, I thought I would add my thoughts also. It does not matter whether you are a stogic supporter of Joe Paterno or not, this man did what was required by the policies of the institution that he worked for. Could he have gone further, maybe. Could he have faced retribution by the institution for going further, maybe. Does this change what happened to those children, not one bit. What happened to those children was not Paterno’s fault.
The reality here people, is that the system failed, period. It failed to stop someone who was hurting others (sadly it was children). We set up policies, regulations, and laws to protect all of us and when they fail, they need to be revisited and fixed so something like this does not ever happen again (I know, good luck).
Sandusky is the criminal, short and sweet. This man took advantage of his position in life to hurt those that he portrayed to help. This individual needs to be placed somewhere where he will rot and never see the light of day again.
The Administration of Penn State needed to blame everyone else for their system failure, this case Joe Paterno. They know what they did was wrong, but it was all to protect their precious name and institution. Is this right, obviously not. Somewhere along the line, when institutions get so big, they forget about what is important, the people they serve. I truly believe that Penn State forgot this basic concept.
In closing, whether you want to blame Joe Paterno, Penn State, or anyone else in this matter, it does not matter. The real criminal is Sandusky. Penn State needs to fix itself but not on the backs (in this case Joe Paterno) of those who helped make it the institution it proclaims to be.
@ John benJohn…yes, REALLY! I still stand by everthing I’ve said. Also, I fail to see where any of my comments were a PERSONAL attack on you or your career. Especially with how my “passive-aggressive” question to this situation being a PA thing. I do not see where my questioning how things are done in Pennsylvania or some organizations, in which you have happened to work, have anything what-so-sever to do with YOU in the sense that I’m attacking you.
But alas, I will submit to your obvious intellect with my bad HR brain. I’m impressed with your qualifications to diagnose my behavior as passive-agressive.
Now here’s a rhetorical question for you…was that last statement passive-agressive. I’ll answer for you. Yes, it was! Have a great day:)
What a controversial subject! I certainly agree with your comments concerning the tragedy of the entire situation (especially the young victims) and how when any employee becomes “untouchable”, it creates a different set of standards which leads to inconsistency in how employees are treated. I’m pretty sure we will never know what exactly happened with Paterno’s involvement. The other point I completely agree with you on is the disrespectful way they handled his termination-someone should have had the “guts’ to meet with him.
Thanks