Due to recent events, Brian Williams had been suspended by NBC news for six months without pay following the revelation that he provided false information regarding a 2003 wartime incident in Iraq. His case made as much news as many of the stories he and his colleagues regularly reported. While the circumstances are unique, there’s a vital lesson here for any organization facing what I call “big shot” misbehavior, which I define as conduct involving a senior leader which not only violates company standards and, more to the point, values, but can also deal a fatal – or at least grievous – blow to an enterprise’s brand and reputation. 

Williams anchored NBC’s Nightly News, the nation’s number one rated major news broadcast. In sports, an “anchor” is typically the fastest and most reliable performer. The word connotes trusted performance. Paradoxically, “anchor” also has another meaning. It's the name for the device which falls to the bottom of the ocean to secure a vessel at sea. Here, the term for his position is both ironic and instructive.

Business, compliance, and other leaders routinely assess potential harms arising out of legal exposure. It’s harder and, yet perhaps more critical, in today’s world of instantaneous communications that enterprise leaders more generally assess the business and reputational risk of other leader misdeeds, including those which may not directly violate regulatory prohibitions.

NBC faced a harsh choice. If it did not take serious action against Williams (whose ultimate return is apparently still under consideration), it would have tainted the credibility of the network anchor role in the context in which it is normally referenced. However, by removing Williams, NBC risked a loss of viewers who might defect to other networks. Enough defections could cost it millions in revenues and prestige. Right now, it’s too soon to know how its decision will play out in terms of Williams’ return or the impact his absence will have on the news cast’s ratings. 

The irony is that big shots and their employers often see themselves as “untouchables,” invulnerable because of their organizational prestige. What we do know now, however, is that Williams’ case is a clear reminder that prominent leaders bear a special responsibility to make sure that their behavior is aligned with their organization’s values. However, the same prominence which gives them status can also make them susceptible to errors which others might potentially be more wary of making.

When faced with big shot misbehavior, the key question is – whether the person is a newscaster, a prominent physician, an executive, a faculty member, or a business chieftain – what will be the contribution of the person if he or she is retained? Will the individual be able to serve as a trustworthy, standard bearer for the organization or a burden – a weight or anchor that can take the enterprise straight to the bottom?

View our complete listing of Talent Management and Leadership Development blogs.