The NHL scores a short-handed goal with its decision to re-instate three tainted executives.
The National Hockey League’s July 1 decision to re-instate the employment eligibility of three former Chicago Blackhawks executives is an equitable yet controversial leadership decision that may have indirect implications for the corporate world.
For the last two and one-half years, these executives (the former general manager, coach and senior hockey administrator) have been ineligible to work for any NHL club following what was described as their “inadequate response upon being informed in 2010 of allegations that Blackhawks’ Player [“John Doe 1”] had been assaulted by the Club’s video coach”. Translated-they were publicly banned from the league.
The circumstances surrounding the assault allegations were horrific and complex; involved intense physical and emotional harm to the player involved, and severely tarnished the reputation of a charter NHL franchise. Upon public disclosure In 2021 of the allegations, the club commissioned an independent investigation of the club’s response to the allegations. As part of its broader conclusions, the investigatory report acknowledged differing recollections of the key participants, especially as to the 2010 meeting in which the executives were informed of the allegations.
Nevertheless, the report concluded that at a minimum, while senior team leaders (including the three executives) were informed of the alleged sexual harassment of and misconduct towards a player by a coach, no action was taken by the club for three weeks, in violation of team policy. Each of the three executives resigned their then-current positions upon release of the report in October, 2021.
At the same time, the league terminated their eligibility for employment in the league, and based any possibility of subsequent employment on a meeting with the commissioner and acceptance of the appropriate conditions under which such new employment might take place. In other words, reinstatement was a long shot.
The NHL’s July 1 decision was thus “not an automatic”. Rather, it was based on each executive’s acknowledgment that he used his period of ineligibility to engage in multiple activities that served to demonstrate sincere remorse for what happened, and to also evidence greater awareness of the leadership responsibilities of NHL personnel. These included participation in programs focused on the imperative of responding in effective and meaningful ways to alleged acts of abuse.
Given the tragic nature of the initial allegations and the broader, ongoing concerns with sexual abuse, the NHL’s reinstatement is controversial. Some will, perhaps understandably, be critical; e.g., that the reinstatement conditions were elementary and the decision marginalizes the significance of sexual abuse in general, and the victim’s pain and suffering in particular.
Nevertheless, there’s an argument that reinstatement was actually a fair, and perhaps even courageous decision-particularly given the conclusions of the report and the severity of the initial decision to remove employment eligibility. And from the larger perspective of corporate governance and leadership, that argument may send a message of interest.
That’s because the NHL’s decision raises the possibility that there may be certain limited corporate personnel decisions (e.g., termination, suspension, demotion, etc.) that may be subject to subsequent reconsideration or refinement based upon appropriate demonstration of remorse. And that’s as applicable to board members and executives as it is to line employees.
Any such action would need to be crafted so as to not undermine the seriousness of the initial penalty decision, or to marginalize the harm created by the implicated conduct. Those would be absolutely fundamental prerequisites. Rather, the decision would need to reflect board-level determination that the penalties served to date, coupled with particular manifestations of individual remorse, were sufficient to achieve the organization’s ultimate goals, particularly as they relate to the preservation of the workforce environment and leadership-level culture.
And there may be some improper conduct that may be more subject to reconsideration treatment than others. For example, penalties for certain violations of codes of conduct and of particular leadership policies could conceivably be more appropriate for subsequent reconsideration than penalties for legal violations, fiduciary breaches or for actions that directly relate to fitness to serve the organization.
It’d have to be a facts-and-circumstances based evaluation grounded in the need to preserve confidence in the organizational, in leadership cultures, and in the core mission and values. But from the board’s perspective, the policy door could be opened to reconsideration in certain situations, and under certain conditions.
Has there been genuine remorse (e.g., in both words and deeds)? Is the organization truly served by such action (e.g., retaining otherwise valued employees, executives and/or board members)? Will it send a positive message to corporate constituencies (e.g., fairness and equity, or favoritism and lack of awareness)? Will there be consequences for future violations (e.g., self-executing action for reoccurrence of the problematic conduct)?
At its core, the NHL’s decision may remind corporate leaders that we’re essentially a forgiving society; that we’re a people who believe in contrition-grounded “second chances”, and that those virtues can-but don’t always-extend to the preservation of workforce culture in unique circumstances.
And that’s whether we’re on the ice rink, in the workplace, or in the boardroom.
